LAWS(TLNG)-2026-2-31

ABDUL QUAVI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

Decided On February 18, 2026
Abdul Quavi Appellant
V/S
State of Telangana Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Sravan Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer and joined Duty on 14/12/1979. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer, MPP, Kesamudram he was deputed to work in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PR Kothagudem of Khammam District from 7/10/1988 to 19/3/1989 and reported back to the duty at the MPDO, MPP Kesamudram on 20/3/1989, but the said MPDO refused to admit him to duty. In view of non giving of posting orders he reported before the respondent No.4, where he waited for posting order from 20/3/1989 to 15/4/1989, but he was not given the posting orders, therefore he was forced to proceed on leave from 16/4/1989 to 29/11/1999 by sending more than 40 leave applications extending leaves from time to time due to personal reasons through registered post and Under Certificate of Posting. The petitioner reported to duty before the respondent No.2/Engineer-in-Chief on 29/11/1999 and he was permitted to join duty on 7/6/2003 in pursuance to the Orders issued by the respondent No.1 vide GO Rt.No.833, PR & RD, Department dtd. 3/6/2003. The respondent No.2 issued Articles of Charges vide Memo No.Dv/2/23117/99 dtd. 14/4/2003 alleging that the petitioner was absent from duty from 7/10/1988 onwards without prior sanction of leave or permission from the superiors. The said allegation is contrary to sub-Rule 3 and 4 of Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules, as the petitioner has sent letters to the respondents through registered post and under certificate of posting seeking for extension of leave from time to time.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent authorities have concluded the disciplinary proceedings vide impugned Proc.No.Vig.II (5)/23063/2003 dtd. 30/1/2012 awarding major punishment of removal form service without examining the facts, evidence available on record and the Articles of Charge Memo dtd. 14/4/2023 was issued not in accordance with Sub-Rules 3 and 4 of Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. The impunged order dtd. 30/1/2012 imposing major punishment of removal from service retrospectively w.e.f 7/10/1988 is arbitrary and contrary to the law.