Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 244 (AP)

K. Subrahmanyam v. Union of India

2024-02-13

HARINATH NUNEPALLY

body2024
JUDGMENT HARINATH N., J. - The petitioner filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the orders dtd. 11/12/2012 issued by the 3rd respondent and subsequent orders dtd. 3/6/2013 passed by the 2nd respondent by which the petitioner services were terminated. 2. The petitioner joined the respondent during the year 2011 as Water Carrier. On 2/7/2012 the petitioner suffered with fever and he was admitted in hospital and discharged on 25/7/2012. 3. Thereafter the petitioner continued his services till 10/11/2012, when the 3rd respondent issued a notice stating that the petitioner was diagnosed with Hepatitis - B (Positive) and that the said disease is chronic. By letter dtd. 10/11/2012 the opinion of DIG Medical CH Impal informed that Hepatitis - B (positive) is chronic disease and found that the petitioner was not fit for service. 4. The petitioner submits that the petitioner got rechecked at Bangalore and that he was found Hepatitis - B (Negative) result and he tested negative for Hepatitis - B. The petitioner got retested at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and was tested negative for Hepatitis - B. 5. Armed with the two medical reports from different hospitals from two different states, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority seeking setting aside the orders of termination and sought reinstatement into service. The 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was submitted beyond the period of three months and as such it was rejected. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Hepatitis-B (positive) disease would not come in the way of discharging duties with the respondent and that apart Hepatitis - B (positive) is a curable disease or atleast at manageable disease if the patient is on medication. 7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Government for respondents submits that the orders of termination are inconsonance with Rules 5 and 6 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services Rules), 1965. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the orders of termination have been issued only after receiving the communication from the competent authority that on account of the ill-health of the petitioner, he would be unfit for service. The appeal was also rightly rejected and as such prays this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The learned Standing Counsel submits that the orders of termination have been issued only after receiving the communication from the competent authority that on account of the ill-health of the petitioner, he would be unfit for service. The appeal was also rightly rejected and as such prays this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 8. As seen from the pleadings and the material submitted along with writ petition, there is no reason mentioned as to why the respondents have chosen to ignore the medical certificates furnished by the petitioner from two different hospitals. At the most the respondents ought to have referred the petitioner for re-medical examination, the respondents have for the reasons not mentioned in the appellate order passed by the 2nd respondent dtd. 3/6/2013 ignored mentioning about the medical reports submitted by the petitioner. The respondents were at liberty to refer the petitioner to the medical board for a better assessment. The respondents have failed to refer the petitioner to the medical board also. 9. The petitioner is appointed as a Constable/Water Carrier in C.R.P.F. The relevant provision of law relating to Discipline among men of the Force is governed by Chapter - VI of CRPF, Rules, 1955. Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955. The Procedure for the award of punishments is detailed. As seen from the said Rule it is evident that the punishment of removal from service can be imposed only after conducting a due enquiry by the Commandant in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 10. In the present case, no such enquiry is caused or conducted. The respondents have passed the impugned orders which are hereby held to be illegal, irrational and beyond jurisdiction of the respondents, as they are have not followed the applicable rules of C.R.P.F, accordingly the impugned orders are hereby set aside. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service. The respondents shall also pay 50 % of the back wages to the petitioner for the period during which he was not in service on account of illegal termination. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to comply the orders of this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.