ORDER: Since the lis in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These Writ Petitions (TR) are filed seeking to declare and set aside the impugned punishment orders dated 17.01.2011 and 30.04.2011 respectively, issued by respondent No.4, and the rejections orders in appeal dated 11.03.2011 and 28/30.06.2011 and in revision dated 30.07.2013, 09.02.2012 and 08.02.2012, passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2, respectively, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice, with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, as per her seniority, with all consequential benefits. 3. Heard S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all these petitions, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) through the 2002- Notification, and after successfully undergoing training, she joined duty on probation in Hyderabad Range vide proceedings dated 30.04.2005, got her probation declared in time, and later, was transferred to Women Police Station, Sangareddy, as Woman Sub-Inspector. While working as such, in addition to her regular duties, the petitioner was deputed to BDL Bhanoor Police Station to look after the urgent duties, vide proceedings dated 10.06.2010, and in obedience of the said orders, the petitioner attended the urgent work at BDL Bhanoor Police Station, despite a heavy workload at her original place of posting. While so, respondent No.4 issued three Charge Memos dated 11.12.2010, 21.01.2011 and 21.12.2011, alleging that the petitioner failed to handover the cell phone of BDL Bhanoor Police Station despite the specific instructions of the Inspector of Police; that she failed to report to duty as per oral instructions; that she was unauthorizedly absent to her duties from 30.12.2010 to 04.01.2011; that she failed to finalize investigation in multiple cases; and that she had deliberately switched- off her cell phone to avoid duties and remained unauthorizedly absent to her duties from 26.12.2010 to 21.01.2011. Upon receipt of the said Charge Memos, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanations on 12.12.2010 and 30.01.2011, categorically denying the charges, stating that she was sanctioned seven days casual leave from 03.12.2010 to 10.12.2010, during which period, she visited her village and was seriously ill. Upon receipt of the said Charge Memos, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanations on 12.12.2010 and 30.01.2011, categorically denying the charges, stating that she was sanctioned seven days casual leave from 03.12.2010 to 10.12.2010, during which period, she visited her village and was seriously ill. As such, she could not report to duty as per the oral instructions. After recovery, the petitioner joined duty on 10.12.2010 itself, and on the very same day, she had handed over the SIM Card to the Inspector of Police, BDL Bhanoor Police Station. It is submitted that on 26.12.2010, with the permission of the Inspector of Police, the petitioner went to her native place, and thereafter, on 31.12.2010, she fell seriously ill and was unable to move or walk. As such, the petitioner visited the BDL Hospital for treatment, and as per the advice of the Doctors, she went to Hyderabad for better treatment, and after her recovery, she reported to duty on 04.01.2011. Hence, the petitioner requested the authority to exonerate her from the charges. However, ignoring all these explanations by treating them as ‘not convincing’, and in utter violation of the mandatory procedure contemplated under the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, respondent No.4 had arbitrarily passed the impugned orders dated 17.01.2011 and 30.04.2011 respectively, imposing a minor punishment of Censure. 5. It is further submitted that the appeals preferred by the petitioner were dismissed vide orders dated 11.03.2011 and 28/30.06.2011, without any reasons or justification. As such, the petitioner preferred revisions before respondent No.2, which were also unilaterally rejected vide single line orders dated 30.07.2013, 09.02.2012 and 08.02.2012, without any reasons for such rejection, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the third censure vide proceedings dated 30.04.2011, was awarded on the very same allegations as in the first charge memo, thereby, amounting to double jeopardy against the petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that despite the petitioner’s being included in the list of Sub Inspectors of Police eligible for promotion, the respondents are not considering her case for promotion on the sole ground that she was under the currency of the punishment of Censure. 6. It is further submitted that despite the petitioner’s being included in the list of Sub Inspectors of Police eligible for promotion, the respondents are not considering her case for promotion on the sole ground that she was under the currency of the punishment of Censure. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned punishment orders and the rejections orders in appeal and revision, with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, as per her seniority, with all consequential benefits. 7. On the other hand, leaned Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that since the explanations submitted by the petitioner were found not convincing, respondent No.4, being the competent authority, has held the charges leveled against the petitioner as proved, resulting in the imposition of the punishment of Censure. Thereafter, the appeals preferred by the petitioner were rightly rejected by respondent No.3, as the petitioner was found guilty of the alleged misconduct, for which, she was inflicted with the minor penalty of Censure. Subsequently, the revisions preferred were also rejected by respondent No.2, as they were time-barred. As such, there is no illegality either in imposing or in confirming the punishments of Censure imposed upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that the competent authority to consider and effect promotion of the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Police, is the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, and not the respondents herein. It is also submitted that since the period of Censure has also completed, the case of the petitioner for promotion would be considered as per her seniority and eligibility. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petitions as devoid of merits. 8. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Admittedly, while the petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at BDL Bhanoor Police Station, three Charge Memos dated 11.12.2010, 21.01.2011 and 21.01.2011 were issued against her. 8. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Admittedly, while the petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at BDL Bhanoor Police Station, three Charge Memos dated 11.12.2010, 21.01.2011 and 21.01.2011 were issued against her. In response, the petitioner submitted her explanations, denying the charges, stating the reason for absence as her serious illness, during her visit to native place, treatment at BDL Hospital and subsequently, at Hyderabad, which resulted in the delay of handing over the SIM card on 10.12.2010. However, respondent No.4 categorically rejected these explanations as ‘not convincing’ and consequently, imposed the impugned punishment of Censure vide orders dated 17.01.2011, 30.04.2011 and 30.04.2011 respectively. The appeals and revisions preferred by the petitioner were also dismissed vide orders dated 11.03.2011 and 28/30.06.2011, and 30.07.2013, 09.02.2012 and 08.02.2012, respectively. 10. For better appreciation of the case on hand, it is pertinent to refer to the charges leveled against the petitioner, which are extracted hereunder: “(i) No.24/PR/SD-RCP/2010 dated 11.12.2010: 1. As per Memo. No. 374/SB/2010, dt. 06-12-2010 of SP Medak you are having (2) cell phones which are pertaining to WPS Sangareddy and BDL Bhanoor PS and you are instructed to keep the cell phone of WPS with you for using official purpose and hand over the cell phone of BDL Bhanoor to Inspector of Police, BDL Bhanoor. In this regard I orally instructed you through phone to hand over the cell phone of BDL Bhanoor PS to Inspector of Police, but you failed to do so. 2. On 01-12-2010 you have sanctioned (7) days C.L. and (1) day permission to avail public holiday w.e.f. 03-12-2010 to 10.-12-2010 vide this office proce. No. 743/SD-RCP/2010. But as per the instructions of superiors, I orally instructed you through phone to report back for duty, as there are hectic activities by various organizations like MRPS for categorization of SC in to A,B,C,D. Students organizations demanding early solution to their pending demands and TRS to motivate people for mobilization of Mahagarjana programme at Warangal,etc., and all these activities are bound to propel sensitivity in the area and thereby calls for grave concern. Inspite of this, you failed to report back for duty. Inspite of this, you failed to report back for duty. (ii) No.02/PR/SD-RCP/2011 dated 21.01.2011 You are worked as SI of Police formerly at BDL Bhanoor P.S. As per the Report No.B4/2011, dt.04-01-2011 of Inspector, BDL Bhanoor PS, you are left the PS on 30-12-2010 at 2100 hours and did not report back for duty till 04-01-2011 and unauthorized absent from your legitimate duties. (iii) No.01/PR/SD-RCP/2011 dated 21.01.2011: 1. During your tenure at BDL Bhanoor PS registered (41) cases from (Cr.No. 56/10 to 97/10) and the following cases are kept pending with you like pillow without any progress and not made any single efforts to finalise the investigation in these cases. 1)-Cr.No.34/10 u/s 120(B), 420, 447, 468, 471, 506 r/w 149 IPC 2)-Cr.No.38/10 u/s 447, 427 IPC 3-Cr.No.67/10 u/s 406 IPC 4-Cr.No.81/10 u/s 380 IPC 5)-Cr.No.85/10 u/s 498(A) IPC 6)-Cr.No.89/10 u/s 376,511 IPC 7)-Cr.No.94/10 u/s 337 IPC 8)-Cr.No.95/10 u/s 324, 427 IPC 2. As per Memo. No. 375/SB/2010, dt. 06-12-2010 of SP Medak you are having (2) cell phones which are pertaining to WPS Sangareddy and BDL Bhanoor PS and you are instructed to keep the cell phone of PS with you for using official purpose and hand over the cell phone of BDL Bhanoor to Inspector of Police, BDL Bhanoor. In this regard I orally instructed you through phone to hand over the cell phone of BDL Bhanoor PS to Inspector of Police, but you failed to do so. 3. On 01-12-2010 you have sanctioned (7) days C.L. and (1) day permission to avail public holiday w.e.f. 03-12-2010 to 10-12-2010 vide this office proce. No. 743/SD-RCP/2010. But as per the instructions of superiors, I orally instructed you through phone to report back for duty, as there are hectic activities by various organizations like MRPS for categorization of SC in to A,B,C,D. Students organizations demanding early solution to their pending demands and TRS to motivate people for mobilization for Mahagarjana programme at Warangal,etc., and all these activities are bound to propel sensititivity in the area and thereby calls for grave concern. Inspite of this, you failed to report back for duty. 4. Inspite of this, you failed to report back for duty. 4. As per GD abstract of BDL Bhanoor PS she was absented from duty from 26-12-2010 at 7 a.m. to till date without intimation and prior permission or leave from superiors and deliberately switched off your official mobile No. 9440901838 to avoid the bancobust duty of Hon'ble CM of AP., Hyderabad at Nizamabad on 28-12-2010.” 11. From a bare reading of the above charges in Memo Nos.24/PR/SD-RCP/2010 and 02/PR/SD-RCP/2011 dated 11.12.2010 and 21.01.2011 respectively, it is clear that they revolve around minor lapses, viz., delayed handover of the SIM Card/official cell phone, failure to report to duty on the oral instructions during sanctioned casual leave period and short spells of unauthorized absence, which per se do not disclose an element of grave misconduct and moral turpitude. Further, in her explanations, the petitioner specifically stated that she went to her native place, with prior sanctioned casual leave. However, she fell sick and was unable to move or walk, and thereafter, underwent treatment at BDL Hospital and later, at Hyderabad, as per the medical advice. As such, it can be construed that the situation was beyond her control and her absence, during the two spells, was the result of the compelling medical circumstances, but not a deliberate or willful one. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India , (2012) 3 SCC 178 , categorically held as follows: “16. In the case of the appellant referring to unauthorised absence the disciplinary authority alleged that he failed to maintain devotion to duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of a government servant. The question whether “unauthorised absence from duty” amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or because of compelling circumstances. 17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. 17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant.” 12. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned punishment of Censure imposed upon the petitioner, in pursuance of the above said charge memos ((i) and (ii) supra), is wholly unwarranted and unsustainable, as the charges pertain to minor lapses, which are sufficiently explained by the petitioner in her explanations stating that her absence was due to the compelling medical circumstances beyond her control. Therefore, the impugned punishment orders, arising out of the Charge Memos dated 11.12.2010 and 21.01.2011, and the consequential orders in appeals and revisions are liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the W.P.(TR).Nos.1172 and 1245 of 2017 are allowed setting aside the impugned punishment orders issued by respondent No.4 vide proceedings No.24/PR/SD-RCP/2010 dated 17.01.2011 and proceedings No.02/PR/SD-RCP/2011 dated 30.04.2011; the appellate orders passed by respondent No.3 vide proceedings in D.O.No.587/2011 (A7/PR/290/2010) dated 11.03.2011 and D.O.No.1483/2011 (A7/PR/ 13/2011) dated 28/30.06.2011; and the revision orders passed by respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.A3-2/Revision/NR-NZB/2013 dated 30.07.2013 and proceedings No.A3-2/Revision/NR-NZB/2011 dated 09.02.2012, respectively. 14. Insofar as W.P.(TR).No.1253 of 2017 is concerned, it is pertinent to note that out of the four charges in Charge Memo.No.01/PR/SD- RCP/2011 dated 21.01.2011, charges (2) and (3) are a repetition of the charges already forming the subject matter in the Charge Memo dated 11.12.2010. However, the remaining two charges pertain to dereliction of duties in investing the pending criminal cases and also in avoiding the bundobust duties. As such, considering the nature of allegations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the punishment of Censure imposed upon the petitioner for these lapses need not be interfered with by this Court. Therefore, W.P.(TR).No.1253 of 2017 is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, W.P.(TR).No.1253 of 2017 is dismissed. As such, considering the nature of allegations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the punishment of Censure imposed upon the petitioner for these lapses need not be interfered with by this Court. Therefore, W.P.(TR).No.1253 of 2017 is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, W.P.(TR).No.1253 of 2017 is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions (TR), shall stand closed. No costs.