ORDER : K Manmadha Rao, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “……to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings issued by the 5th respondent in D.0.1621/2019 and C.No.21/0EPR/2017 dated 09.03.2019 which was up held by the appellate and review authority thereby removing the petitioner from service,e as illegal, irregular, irrational, non-discharge of legal obligation conferred on them and offends Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinitiate the petitioner in to service with continuity of service and all other benefits and pass………….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that he petitioner was appointed for the post of Armed Reserve Constable (PC3347) in the years 2009 and since then he discharged his duties with utmost satisfaction of his superiors. The petitioner mother namely Smt. Veera Vani who was suffering for ill health and admitted in hospital and unfortunately died on 23.08.2016. As no one to see to look after the welfare of his mother, he prepared to go to job after completion of all death formalities of his deceased mother, Unfortunately the petitioner was suffered due to Severe Asthama. Hence, the petitioner has obtained medical treatment from Dr.M.Raghavendra Rao, MD, DYCD, FCCP(USA) from 05.09.2016 and he was stated that it requires prolonged medical treatment, for that the petitioner was under medication by taking complete bed rest. Thereafter the petitioner was cured from the Asthama and able to discharge his legitimate duties on 25.05.2017 i.e., 45 days prior to fit the petitioner duty. Hence the petitioner approached the 5th respondent on 25.05.2017 and explained his problems and requested him to take him for his duties. After considering the petitioner request and difficulties due to the petitioner absence for his legitimate duties, 5th respondent issued proceedings vide Order in DO.No. 459/2017 & 3227/A8/2017 dated 26.05.2017 by stating that taken the petitioner on duty with immediate effect and ordered to the Reserve Inspector, A.R.Kakinada to take him to duty and inform the date of joining to District Police Office immediately. Accordingly the petitioner went to the office of the Reserve Inspector, District Armed Reserve, Kakinada along with his friend namely Sri K.L.M.Prasad, Civil Police Constable bearing No. 2920 on 27.05.2017 and produced the order copy given by the 5th respondent before him and with a request to detail the petitioner for performing the duties. The Reserve Inspector was received the same and perused it and told to the petitioner that the said order copy not yet received in his office and instructed the petitioner come tomorrow. The petitioner has no option he left the office of the 6th respondent along with his friend on that day. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the said Reserve Inspector in his office on 29.05.2017 on the next day i.e., 28.05.2017 (fallen Sunday being holiday) in compliance of his instructions and requested for the same. The said Reserve Inspector silent for some time and then told to the petitioner that he will clarify the matter to the 5th respondent, since the petitioner was absent for duties for a long period. Accordingly, the Reserve Inspector has avidly delayed from day to day till 13.06.2017 under the reason best known to him. Finally on 14.06.2017 the Reserve Inspector expressed that the petitioner absence to duty exceeded one year. Moreover, Article of Charge under rule 20 was served against the petitioner, involving an oral enquiry and further the Reserve Inspector directed him to come after completion of oral enquiry. While the matter stood thus, after completion of oral enquiry, the 6 th respondent has issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling for the explanation to the Minutes. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.01.2018, but the 5th respondent without considering the petitioner explanation, has issued proceedings vide D.O.1621/2019 & C.No.21/OEPR/2017 on 09.03.2019 terminating the petitioner from service after lapse of more than one and half year from the date of the receipt of the minute. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 5 th respondent. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 5 th respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the contention of the petitioner without considering his explanation on 15.01.2018 the 5th respondent passed proceedings vide D.O.No.1621/2019 (C.No.21/OE- PR/2017) dated 09.03.2019 by removing from the service after lapse of more than one and half year from the date of minutes of to this office and great injustice has been done to him by the Reserve Inspector Armed Reserve, Kakinada by cheating him and giving false guidance to him intentionally to spoil his future is not correct, as if the petitioner felt anything wrong with the Reserve Inspector Armed Reserve Kakinada there is every possibility and scope to the petitioner to approach the disciplinary authority to express his grievances to give further instructions if any to the Reserve Inspector Armed Reserve, Kakinada. But he has not done so and attributing Reserve Inspector as per his wish. Further his version that if he was taken into consideration of the said order with regard to taking him to duty on 26.05.2017 his absence period is only 11 months 15 days might be correct, if he really approached to report for duty, but he has not do so and claiming the same is only after thought. Even though he received orders for join into duty, he failed to join into duty and trying to gain sympathy and trying to blame others. The Unit Officer has no option to take action accordingly to the G.O. It is stated that the version of the petitioner that the 5th respondent silent with regard to the orders vide D.O.No.459/2017 (C.No.3227/A8/2017) dated 26.05.2017 is not correct as the petitioner did not approach the disciplinary authority and not emphasized his grievances then and there only to pacify the matter but he kept quiet. Further he preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the same was rejected vide proceedings in C.No.8/Appeal-P3/2019 dated 16.07.2019 by the DIG of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru only after followed the due procedure only. Further he preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the same was rejected vide proceedings in C.No.8/Appeal-P3/2019 dated 16.07.2019 by the DIG of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru only after followed the due procedure only. Further the petitioner preferred revision petition on 26.08.2019 before the 2nd respondent but there is no response received from the 2nd respondent on his revision petition is not at all correct and his contention is totally false as his revision petition was examined by the 2nd respondent and found no merit in revision, therefore the same was considered and rejected vide proceedings D.Dis. No. 978/T1/2019 dated 06.08.2020 by the Inspector General of Police, Personnel, A.P. which was acknowledged by the petitioner 21.09.2020. It is further stated that the version of the petitioner that the respondents are legal obligation to consider his petition filed against the removal proceedings vide D.O.No. 1621/2019 (C.No.21/OE-PR/2017) dated 09.03.2019 the respondents instead of allowing his petitions they rejected only after following the due procedure under rule 18 of Fundamental Rules and G.O.Ms.No.260 dated 4.9.2008 as it was found no merit in the appeal and revision petitions. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the 5 th respondent. It is stated that when the petitioner was called for Oral enquiry a murder was occurred near the enquiry officer station and he was directed to appear whenever called, however at no point of time he was called by the enquiry officer and the enquiry was completed in his absence. Therefore the procedure contemplated under The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1991 is not followed by the Respondents in issuing the Major Penalty of removal from service. It is further stated that it is true and correct that the petitioner unauthorizedly absented from the duties as he was not sanctioned with leave when his mother was on death bed and thereafter due to asthma, he suffered, but not intentional and wanton absence. The absence of the petitioner to the duties is true but not upto the mark of imposing punishment removal from service as he reported to be reinstated into service within one year, however the petitioner was not reinducted into service despite issuance of proceedings dated: 26.05.2017. The absence of the petitioner to the duties is true but not upto the mark of imposing punishment removal from service as he reported to be reinstated into service within one year, however the petitioner was not reinducted into service despite issuance of proceedings dated: 26.05.2017. Further, without executing the same punishing the petitioner without reinduction the petitioner into service for the best reasons of extraneous considerations basing on G.O.Ms.No.260, dated: 04.09.2003 is totally illegal and arbitrary. 5. Heard Sri A. K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for services-I appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, requests this Court to pass appropriate orders while setting aside the impugned proceedings. 7. Whereas, learned Government Pleader also while reiterating the averments made in the petition, opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 8. Perused the material on record. 9. As seen from the Minute proceedings dated 30.08.2017, wherein it is observed that, “under Rule 20 of APCS(CC&A) Rules, 1991 on the imputation that he was absented himself from duty on 12-06-2016 and completed 21 days desertion period by 13-07-2016 vide Report submitted by the Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police, District Armed Reserve, Kakinada and he was declared as deserter as per the order No.184 of APPM Vol-1 vide DO No.693/2016, C.No.265/A-5/2016, dated: 13-07-2016 of the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada.” 10. It is also observed from the Minutes, wherein it was mentioned that : “……Then he appeared before the kind Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada and submitted for his representation about his absence. On perusal of his requisition of the kind Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada issued order vide D.O. No. 459/2017 C.No. 3227/A8/2017 Dt: 26-05-2017. As per the order of the kind officer he reported for duty before Reserve Inspector, Armed Reserved, Kakinada. Finally he requested that dispose the charges against him without any oral enquiry and also requested to kind Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada drop further action without any oral enquiry. and see that no remarks in his service…” 11. This Court further observed that, after issuing the above Minutes, the 6 th respondent issued a show cause notice calling for explanation. and see that no remarks in his service…” 11. This Court further observed that, after issuing the above Minutes, the 6 th respondent issued a show cause notice calling for explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted detailed explanation, but without considering the same, the 5 th respondent has issued proceedings dated 9.3.2019, which is impugned in the present writ petition. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner absent from duty for a long period due to his personal problems. Moreover, he preferred an appeal and revision and both were dismissed by way of rejection. 12. As seen from the impugned order dated 9.3.2019, wherein it is observed that : “I have gone through the Memorandum of Charges, minutes of the Enquiry Officer, other connected records, explanation of the charged officer and entire OE record placed before me carefully. On perusal of the minute submitted by the Inspector of Police, Mandapeta Rural, the enquiry officer opined that the charged officer absented for duty without any leave or permission from 12.06.2015 A.N. and convincing. it proved his desertion. The explanation of charged officer is not convincing.” 13. On a plain reading of the above, it is observed that, the 5 th respondent has issued the proceedings, only on a perusal of minute submitted by the Inspector of Police, Mandapeta, Rural. It clearly establishes that, without considering the explanation of the petitioner, intentionally issued the proceedings awarding “Removal’ from service. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is observed that, at first, after considering the problems faced by the petitioner, the 5 th respondent has issued proceedings vide Order in DO.No. 459/2017 & 3227/A8/2017 dated 26.05.2017 stating that taken the petitioner on duty with immediate effect and ordered to the Reserve Inspector, A.R.Kakinada to take him to duty. Moreover, the said Reserve Inspector rejected the petitioner to join duty on the ground that he has not received any copy. So, it clearly established that the petitioner approached the Reserve Inspector to join duty, but delay is occurred only on the laches of the Reserve Inspector, he could not joint duty in time. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition while declaring the proceedings issued by the 5 th respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition while declaring the proceedings issued by the 5 th respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in D.O.No.1621/2019&C.No.21/OEPR/2017, dated 09.03.2019 issued by the 5 th respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, by affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, and pass appropriate reasoned orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. 16. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications in the writ petition, shall stand closed.