Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1158 (TS)

Anarapu Srinivas v. State of Telangana

2025-10-07

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

body2025
ORDER : NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings No.704/T4/2022, dated 18.11.2023, as confirmed by the 3 rd respondent by his order vide C.No.A5/03/1553/PR/0E/2022 (1407), dated 18.10.2022 vide C.O.O.No. 1056/2022, in removing the services of the petitioner as PC.170, Muttaram PS, Peddapalli District, as illegal. 2. Heard Sri Kadire Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected as a police constable and was appointed on 10.08.1990. Ever since of the date of his appointment, the petitioner has rendered his services to the department in various places as a Police Constable and received awards and rewards for his outstanding services. On a term wise basis, he was allotted for Tamilnadu Election bundobust duty, and the same was intimated to him over a phone call on 23.04.2021 at 07.45 hours. On 25.03.2021, petitioner was handed over the counter file slip of summons while he was working as a Police Constable at Pothkapalli Police Station, Commissionerate of Police, Ramagundam. After completion of the summons duty, he was affected with severe hypertension and chest pain suddenly. Subsequently, he sent a message through WhatsApp to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner immediately rushed to the Hospital for treatment on 26.03.2021. The Medical Officer, TSVVP, Godhavarikani, advised the petitioner to take at least 10 days bed rest due to CAD, Hypertension emergency, with effect from 26.03.2021 to 05.04.2021, and he certified the same by issuing "Form-A." After hearing this fact, the petitioner informed the Sub Inspector of Police about his health condition and requested that a Sick Passport be issued duly enclosing the out Patient Card and a doctor’s certificate. Due to these reasons, the Petitioner was unable to attend duties from 26.03.2021 to 10.04.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner went to the P.S. on 11.04.2021 to join in his duties and also requested the Sub Inspector, Pothkapalli, to permit him to join duties. But, the Sub Inspector did not consider his request. Due to these reasons, the Petitioner was unable to attend duties from 26.03.2021 to 10.04.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner went to the P.S. on 11.04.2021 to join in his duties and also requested the Sub Inspector, Pothkapalli, to permit him to join duties. But, the Sub Inspector did not consider his request. Again, the petitioner went to attend the duties on the next day i.e., 12.04.2021 and requested the Sub Inspector to permit him to join duties, but the same was rejected. The Petitioner had been waiting for the duties from 9:00.A.M to 5:00.P.M., but the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothakapalli, did not take him into the duties on the next day either. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the said circumstances, the petitioner went to the officer of the Inspector of Police to meet him personally to make a representation to take him into the duties on 14.04.2021, but the Inspector of Police was not available in the office on that day. As such, he informed the Inspector of Police over the cell phone about what had happened. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that later, the petitioner again fell sick severely, immediately rushed to the Hospital and on test, detected COVID positive on 16.04.2021. Immediately, he rushed to Aryan Care & Cure Hospital Karimnagar, and after giving first aid, they refused to admit the petitioner as the petitioner’s condition was critical and referred to AIMS. As such, the petitioner was admitted to I.C.U. in Sigma Hospital, Godhavarikani, for treatment of COVID and remained there as an inpatient up to 02.05.2021. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 24.05.2021, the petitioner was tested COVID negative, and the test reports were given on 31.05.2021. The same was also informed to the higher authorities. The Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, who found the petitioner admitted in the Hospital, had granted and paid Rs.1,00,000/- as medical reimbursement bill vide cheque No.497182. On 12.08.2021, the petitioner made a representation requesting the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, to take him to take into duties and also explained the behaviour of the concerned Sub Inspector. The Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, who found the petitioner admitted in the Hospital, had granted and paid Rs.1,00,000/- as medical reimbursement bill vide cheque No.497182. On 12.08.2021, the petitioner made a representation requesting the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, to take him to take into duties and also explained the behaviour of the concerned Sub Inspector. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, considering the petitioner’s request, issued an order on the same day, vide issued C.No. 195/2195/A4/desertion/2021, C.O.O.No.888/2021 to take the petitioner on duty from desertion and, thereby, the petitioner joined in his duties again. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that later, the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, issued desertion proceedings vide C.N.No. 195 / 2195 / A4 / LR / desertion/2021, C.O.No.701/2021, dated 28.05.2021 by declaring the petitioner has deserted w.e.f. 28.03.2021 F.N. as per order No.184/A.P.P.M Part-1, based on the report of Sub Inspector of police, Kamanpur, which is not relevant and is illegal. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was illegally declared as deserter from 28.03.2021 to 17.08.2021. Based on the impugned order of the desertion vide C.N.No. 195/2195/A4/desertion/LR/2021, C.O.O. No.888/2021, dated 12.08.2021, the oral enquiry was conducted on 29.07.2022 vide, C.N.No.04/PR/A.C.P.Trf/ 2022. The A.C.P. Traffic, Ramagundam, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer on 22.04.2022, vide C.N.No. A5/03/1553/PR/0.E/2022 issued by the Commissioner of Police Ramagundam. Additionally, the Inspector of Police, Legal Cell, Ramagundam, was appointed as the Presenting Officer to inquire into the charges against the petitioner, which are illegal and contrary to law. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Commissioner of Police framed the article of charge against the petitioner, stating that while the petitioner was working at Pothakapalli P.S., he was absent from his legitimate duties without taking any leave or permission w.e.f. 28.03.2021 F.N. and continued to be absent for more than 21 days unauthorizedly. Therefore, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothakapalli PS, has submitted a report vide Lr.C.No.66/S5/2021, dated 02.05.2021 against the Charged Officer/petitioner that he absented from his legitimate duties without leave or permission for more than (21) days and he may be declared as “deserter”. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the report of Sub Inspector of Police, Pothakapalli PS, the Charged Officer/petitioner declared as deserter w.e.f. 28.03.2021 F.N. as per order dated 28.05.2021. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the report of Sub Inspector of Police, Pothakapalli PS, the Charged Officer/petitioner declared as deserter w.e.f. 28.03.2021 F.N. as per order dated 28.05.2021. Later, he was taken on duty by the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, where he reported to duty on 18.08.2021 at Pothkapalli P.S., which is not correct. The charged officer was not declared as deserter w.e.f. 28.03.2021 F.N. as alleged as per the report of Sub Inspector Police, Pothkapalli Police Station. The Charged officer/Petitioner was declared as a deserter as per the report of Sub Inspector TSPM Police, Kamanpur, vide proceedings in C.N.No.194/2194/A4/LR/Desertion/2021 C.O.No.701 of 2021, dated 28.05.2021 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam, who is no way concerned of alleged unauthorized absent of the petitioner w.e.f. 28-03-2021 FN, because the petitioner was working at that time in the Police Station, Pothkapalli. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the oral enquiry held against the petitioner on 29.07.2022, the petitioner submitted his oral explanation about his health issues, including the effect of COVID-19 and was unable to attend to his duties. Documentary evidence was also submitted before the authorities by the petitioner, but the Enquiry Officer did not consider the health grounds of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted in his report that as the allegations levelled against the charged officer/petitioner have exhibited gross misconduct in absenting from his legitimate duties for more than (21) days w.e.f. 28.03.2011 F.N. without leave or permission from the Superior officers. Thereby, the petitioner becoming deserter w.e.f. 28.03.2021 FN as per order No.184 of TSPM, he thereby violated Rule 3 of TSCS (conduct) Rules, 1964. Therefore, the charge against the charged officer/petitioner is to stand “Proved Beyond Doubt” in the light of the witness’s statement, is illegal. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that based on the Enquiry Officer’s report, the 3 rd respondent awarded the punishment of "Removal from service and the absent period with effect from 28.03.2011 to 14.08.2021 treated as L.W.P. (leave without pay), is illegal. Though the petitioner suffered from severe chest pain, COVID-19 positive and in spite of financial assistance granted by the 3rd respondent for his medical treatment, the 3rd respondent awarded the punishment as stated supra. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be set aside in the eye of law. Therefore, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 15. Though the petitioner suffered from severe chest pain, COVID-19 positive and in spite of financial assistance granted by the 3rd respondent for his medical treatment, the 3rd respondent awarded the punishment as stated supra. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be set aside in the eye of law. Therefore, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 15. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 filed counter stating that the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli, submitted a report to respondent No.3 against petitioner vide his letter dated 02.05.2021 stating that the petitioner was issued a passport for summons duty in Cr.No.22/2020 u/s 498(A) IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of Pothkapalli Police Station on 23.03.2021 at 0700 hrs. 16. It is further stated that later on, turn wise basis, the petitioner was drafted for Tamil Nadu Election bandobust duty and the same was informed to the petitioner over phone on 24.03.2021 at 07:45 hours. However, on 25.03.2021, the petitioner handed over the counterfoil slip of the summons to Sri A. Thirupathi, PC 626, Court Constable, intentionally. On the same day, at 12.15 hours, he posted a whatsApp message from his Cell Phone number 7901127028 to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli, informing him that he could not perform Election duty in Tamil Nadu as he was suffering from heart problem. 17. It is further stated that on 27.03.2021, the petitioner posted another whatsApp message to avoid Bundobust duty and later, posted a picture message of Form-A having stamp of Area Hospital, Godavarikhani, by mentioning that he was suffering from health problem and was in need of 10 days for restoration of his health. On 12.04.2021, morning the petitioner went to Pothkapalli Police Station, while the Sub Inspector of Police was preparing a memo, asked the petitioner to submit his explanation for his unauthorized absence. However, the petitioner stayed there for five minutes and went away without obtaining permission. 18. It is further stated that on 14.04.2021 at about 11:30 hours, the petitioner again went to Pothkapplli Police Station and stayed there for 15 minutes and went away in a most negligent manner without submitting any explanation. Since the petitioner was absent from his legitimate duties w.e.f. 28.03.2021 without leave or permission for more than (21) days, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli, requested respondent No.3 to declare the petitioner as deserter. Since the petitioner was absent from his legitimate duties w.e.f. 28.03.2021 without leave or permission for more than (21) days, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli, requested respondent No.3 to declare the petitioner as deserter. As per Order No.184 of the Telangana State Police Manual, whoever remains absent unauthorizedly without prior permission or leave for 21 days, has to be declared as deserter. 19. It is further stated that, as per the report of Sub Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli Police Station, the respondent No. 3 declared the petitioner as a deserter w.e.f. 28.03.2021 FN, as per Order, dated: 28.05.2021. Later, the petitioner was taken on duty by respondent No.3, where the petitioner reported for duty on 18.08.2021 at Pothikapalli Police Station. 20. It is further stated that respondent No.3 framed the article of charge under Rule 20 of Telangana Civil Services (CC&A Rules 1991 (Telangana Adaption order 2016) and issued to petitioner vide C.No. 03/1553/A5/PR/OE/2022 dated 26.02.2022 for his unauthorized absent from duty for more than 21 days. Having acknowledged the charge memo on 29.03.2022, the petitioner has not submitted his written statement of defence. Hence, the respondent No. 3 appointed the ACP, Traffic, Ramagundam as the Inquiring Authority to conduct the Oral Enquiry against the petitioner vide C.No.A5/03/1553/PR/OE/2022, dated 22.04.2022. 21. It is further stated that the Inquiry Authority has conducted a regular enquiry into charges against the petitioner and submitted minutes to respondent No.3, duly holding the charges as “proved” vide C.No.04/PR/ACP.Trf/2022, dated 29.07.2022. Agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Authority, respondent No.3 had supplied a copy of the minute drawn by the Inquiry Authority to the petitioner, calling for his further representation, if any, vide Memo A5/03/1553/PR/OE/2022, C.No. dated 02.08.2022. The petitioner acknowledged the minute copy on 10.08.2022, but he has failed to submit his further representation even though reasonable opportunity was afforded to him. 22. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent has gone through the findings of the Inquiry Authority and other connected records carefully. Petitioner intentionally avoided the bandobust duty in Tamil Nadu and sent text message in whatsApp to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli, informing that he was suffering from ill-health and need 10 days rest. 22. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent has gone through the findings of the Inquiry Authority and other connected records carefully. Petitioner intentionally avoided the bandobust duty in Tamil Nadu and sent text message in whatsApp to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pothkapalli, informing that he was suffering from ill-health and need 10 days rest. When the Sub Inspector, Pothakapally, advised him to come to the Police Station and obtain leave, but disobeying the instructions of the Sub Inspector, the charged officer/petitioner absented himself from duty followed by desertion from the force, which shows gross dereliction of his legitimate duties. 23. It is further stated that as per petitioner’s previous service record, he has deserted from the force for (7) times, for which, he was awarded 7-PPIs for one year without effect on future increments and pension, 1-PPI for two years without effect on future increments and pension, and 2-Censures in various occasions in the service. During the year 2021, the petitioner deserted from the force (4) times. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner has frequently absented himself from duty unauthorizedly for days together showing that he had no interest in discharging the duties as entrusted by his superior officers, and his habitual absence from duty will reflect poorly among the police in the department. 24. Hence, the 3 rd respondent awarded the punishment of “Removal from service” to the petitioner and the absence period with effect from 28.03.2021 to 17.08.2021 is treated as L.W.P.(Leave without pay) vide proceedings C.No.A5/03/1553/PR/OE/2022(1407), dated 18.10.2022. As such, the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings No.704/T4/2022, dated 18.11.2023, holds good. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 25. A perusal of the record shows that petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 10.08.1990. While working as a constable in the Department, he got Awards and Rewards for his services. Petitioner completed his service for more than 32 years in the Department. On 18.10.2022, the impugned order was passed, removing the petitioner from service. The absent period of the petitioner from 28.03.2021 to 17.08.2021 was treated as leave without pay (L.W.P.). 26. While working as a constable in the Department, he got Awards and Rewards for his services. Petitioner completed his service for more than 32 years in the Department. On 18.10.2022, the impugned order was passed, removing the petitioner from service. The absent period of the petitioner from 28.03.2021 to 17.08.2021 was treated as leave without pay (L.W.P.). 26. The main contention of the respondents in the removal order is that, the petitioner deserted from the force for seven times, for which, he was awarded seven (07) PPIs for one year without effect on future increments and pension, (01) PPI for two years without effect on future increments and pension, and two censures on different occasions in the service. Furthermore, the respondents’ contention in the removal order is that gross misconduct occurred in absenting oneself from legitimate duties for more than 21 days, effective from 28.03.2021 to 17.08.2021. 27. The petitioner contended that in the oral enquiry held against him on 29.07.2022, he submitted an oral explanation about his health issues, including the effect of COVID-19 and was unable to attend to his duties. To that effect, documentary evidence was also submitted before the authorities, but the Enquiry Officer did not consider the health grounds of the petitioner. But, the fact remains that petitioner suffered from ill-health; twice, he informed the authorities of his health condition through WhatsApp on 27.03.2021 and 14.04.2021. 28. The petitioner contended that after COVID effect, the authorities reimbursed the medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- vide letter dated 21.10.2021, during the treatment period 28.04.2021 to 02.05.2021. As per the OM dated 07.06.2021, issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, whenever a Government employee suffers from COVID, the treatment of period of absence shall be treated as follows: Sl.No. Situation Treatment of the period of absence 02 When the Government servant himself is COVID positive, and is in home isolation and has also been hospitalized. (i) Shall be granted Commuted Leave/SCL/EL for a period up to 20 days starting from the time having tested COVID positive, if the period of home quarantine/discharge from hospital falls within 20 days, as per Sl.No.1 above. (ii) In case of hospitalization beyond the 20th day from his testing COVID positive, he shall be granted Commuted Leave, on production of documentary proof of hospitalization. (ii) In case of hospitalization beyond the 20th day from his testing COVID positive, he shall be granted Commuted Leave, on production of documentary proof of hospitalization. (iii) If, however, after discharge from the hospital, the Government servant is required to remain at home for post-COVID recovery, he may be granted leave of any kind due and admissible to him, with the approval of the concerned Competent Authority, as per the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. It is only when the Commuted Leave is not available to the credit of the Government servant that SCL of 15 days or EL or EOL shall be considered. 29. The petitioner also made a representation on 12.08.2021 before the Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam. In the said representation, he stated that he suffered from chest pain and was treated by the Government Hospital, Godavari Khani. The respondent authorities, after conducting the enquiry, declared the petitioner as a deserter from 28.03.2021 to 17.08.2021. The petitioner’s contention is that, the respondent authorities when making that decision did not consider his health condition as evidenced by the documentary evidence. 30. The petitioner contended that he went to Police Station on 11.04.2021 to join duties and requested with folded hands to accept his request to join the duty, but the authorities did not consider his request. The next day i.e. 12.04.2021 requested the SI to take him on duty, but he was reluctant to do so despite the petitioner waited from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 31. The respondent authorities, on the one hand, granted medical reimbursement of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner for having suffered from ill-health, and on the other hand, taking into consideration the absence period of the petitioner during the said ill-health, removed the petitioner from the service, which is untenable in law. It is also pertinent to mention here that, according to the petitioner’s previous service record, he has deserted from the force for 7 times, for which, he was awarded 7-PPIs for one year, without any effect on future increments and pension. During the year 2021, the petitioner has deserted from the force 4 times. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner has frequently absented himself from duty without authorization, showing that he had no interest in discharging his duties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner served the department for nearly 30 years and received awards and rewards for his outstanding services. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner has frequently absented himself from duty without authorization, showing that he had no interest in discharging his duties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner served the department for nearly 30 years and received awards and rewards for his outstanding services. Hence, the action of the respondent authorities in removing the petitioner from service as a deserter is disproportionate to the alleged absent period of the petitioner. 32. Therefore, the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent dated 18.11.2023 as confirmed by the 3 rd respondent by his order dated 18.10.2022 in removing the services of the petitioner as PC.170, Muttaram PS, Peddapalli District are hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and impose lesser punishment other than removal from service in accordance with law within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy this order. 33. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.