ORDER : The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following relief: “….. to issue an appropriate order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings vide D.No.475/2017 C.No.21/0EPR/2016, dt.12.06.2017 issued by the 4 th respondent in imposing punishment of removal from service of the petitioner with immediate effect and further confirming the same by the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents is illegal and arbitrary and violation of procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991 and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to reinstate the petitioner into service as Civil Police Constable (PC) with immediate effect with all service benefits ….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Civil Police Constable (PC) in 2003. Subsequently, the petitioner was posted to the Anti-Narcotics Squad (ANS) in Kakinada after successfully completing police training at PTC, Vizianagaram. Later, the petitioner was transferred to the Uppalaguptam Police Station in East Godavari, within the Amalapuram sub-division, where the petitioner worked for about a year. In 2014, the petitioner was again transferred to the ANS in Kakinada. While working in the ANS, the petitioner suddenly became bedridden on 30.12.2014. The petitioner’s wife then took him to Janagam in Karimnagar District, where he was treated by Dr.Rajam, Medical Officer at the Public Health Centre, from 30.12.2014 to 15.10.2015. Subsequently, the petitioner returned to Kakinada and received treatment from Dr.Vadrevu Ravi and Dr. Palanki Seetaramaiah from 16.10.2015 to 11.07.2016. While so, a Police Constable from Kakinada came to the petitioner’s house and served a deserter order vide D.No.475/2017 C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 12.06.2017, issued by the 5 th respondent, who appears to have been appointed as the Enquiry Officer on 01.11.2016. The order was based on the ground that the petitioner was absent from duty without any leave or permission from 30.12.2014 to 19.01.2015 (forenoon). On 03.08.2016, the 4 th respondent issued an order of suspension from service. Thereafter, on 01.11.2016, the 4 th respondent appointed the 5 th respondent as the Enquiry Officer. The 5 th respondent submitted a report on 03.03.2017 to the 4 th respondent. However, the 4 th respondent, without verifying the Minutes submitted by the 5 th respondent, confirmed the Enquiry Officer's report without examining the substance of the enquiry or providing any reasons. The 5 th respondent submitted a report on 03.03.2017 to the 4 th respondent. However, the 4 th respondent, without verifying the Minutes submitted by the 5 th respondent, confirmed the Enquiry Officer's report without examining the substance of the enquiry or providing any reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The 4 th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that while the petitioner was working in the Anti-Naxalites Squad in Kakinada, he was absent from duty starting from 30.12.2014 without any leave or permission from his superior officers. The petitioner did not inform his superiors about his illness, whereabouts, or the treatment he was undergoing at the Urban Health Center in Jangson, formerly in Karimnagar District, now in Jangaon District, Telangana State, from 30.12.2014 to 15.10.2015. Subsequently, from 16.10.2015 to 12.07.2016, the petitioner received treatment from Dr.Vadrevu Ravi and Dr.Palanki Seetaramaiah in Kakinada. It is further stated that the 4 th respondent declared the petitioner a deserter vide D.O.No.51/2015 in L.R.No.46/A5/2015, dated 22.01.2015, and the petitioner acknowledged the same on 25.01.2015. Since the petitioner did not report for duty even after being given a reasonable opportunity through proceedings dated 22.01.2015, which directed him to appear before the 4 th respondent within one month to join duty, and as he appeared before the 4 th respondent only after more than 1½ years, he was placed under suspension vide D.O.No.756/2015 in C.No.5597/A8/2016, dated 03.08.2016. The 4 th respondent also served a Memorandum of Charge on the petitioner vide C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 03.08.2016, which the petitioner acknowledged on the same day. The 4 th respondent appointed the 5 th respondent as the Inquiring Authority vide C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 01.11.2016, to conduct an oral enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner acknowledged the appointment and appeared before the 5 th respondent on 28.02.2017, expressing no objection to the conduct of the oral enquiry. The petitioner also opted for a personal hearing on 03.03.2017 and submitted his Written Statement of Defence to the 5 th respondent, duly admitting his absence from duty starting 30.12.2014 without leave or permission. The 5 th respondent submitted the minute dated 03.03.2017 to the 4 th respondent, holding the charges framed against the petitioner as proved. The petitioner also opted for a personal hearing on 03.03.2017 and submitted his Written Statement of Defence to the 5 th respondent, duly admitting his absence from duty starting 30.12.2014 without leave or permission. The 5 th respondent submitted the minute dated 03.03.2017 to the 4 th respondent, holding the charges framed against the petitioner as proved. After reviewing the entire record of the oral enquiry, the 4 th respondent awarded the punishment of removal from service, treating the period of absence from 30.12.2014 FN to 02.08.2016 FN as Leave Without Pay (LWP) in terms of Rule 18 of the Fundamental Rules and G.O.Ms.No.260, General Administration (Ser-C) Department, dated 04.09.2003, vide D.O.No.475/2017 in C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 12.06.2017, as the petitioner had absented himself from duty for a continuous period exceeding one year, following the procedure laid down in the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. 4. Heard Smt.P.Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the 5 th respondent, who is the Enquiry Officer in my case, did not examine or even review the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner, nor did he consider the other medical documents supporting the petitioner’s ill-health during that particular period. Furthermore, the 5 th respondent failed to take any steps to examine any witnesses on the petitioner’s behalf, including any doctors or any officer from the Medical Board at Janagam, as well as the doctors at Kakinada who treated the petitioner, in order to ascertain the truth. Without verifying all the facts and without considering the explanation provided by the petitioner, the 4 th respondent issued a termination order on 12.06.2017. She further submits that the 4 th respondent observed that the charged officer absented the duties more than one year, as per Rule-18 of fundamental rule and as per G.O.Ms.No.260, dated 04.09.2003, all the cases of unauthorized absence to duty for continuous period exceeding one year the penalty of removal from service shall be imposed on the Government Employee after duly following procedure laid down in AP Civil Services (CC & A) Rules 1991. The 4 th respondent without following the procedure contemplated under the Rules as well as procedure laid down in AP Civil Services (CC & A) Rules 1991 issued the orders of punishment of removal is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. She further submits that aggrieved by the order of the 4 th respondent dated 12.06.2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3 rd respondent and requested to drop the penalty of removal from services, but the 3 rd respondent without considering the appeal grounds, simply rejected the appeal on 30.11.2018 and confirmed the orders of the 4 th respondent without giving any independent reasons on the appeal, which is not valid and is liable to be set aside. She further submits that against the orders passed by the 3 rd respondent, the petitioner preferred revision before the 2 nd respondent on 21.01.2019 and the 2 nd respondent vide orders dated 05.09.2019 confirmed the orders of the 3 rd respondent without giving any reasons. 6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Chhel Singh vs. M.G.B. Gramin Bank Pali and others , [Civil Appeal No.6018 of 2014] , wherein the Hon’ble Apex held as follows: “12. The Division Bench has accepted that the inquiry stood vitiated by disallowing the request of the appellant to summon the rest of the five witnesses. For the said reason, the Division Bench has not interfered with such part of the finding and order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the impugned order of termination dated 17th October, 1994 and the Appellate Authority order dated 26th December, 1994 were quashed. 13. The order of termination being quashed by the High Court, in absence of any observation and grounds to refuse the reinstatement, the appellant automatically stood reinstated. Without reinstatement in service, the question of further inquiry does not arise. There was no occasion for the Division Bench of the High Court to direct further inquiry, without reinstatement of appellant. 15. From the plain reading of the charges we find that the main allegation is absence from duty from 11.12.89 to 24.10.90 (approximately 10 and ½ months), for which no prior permission was obtained from the competent authority. There was no occasion for the Division Bench of the High Court to direct further inquiry, without reinstatement of appellant. 15. From the plain reading of the charges we find that the main allegation is absence from duty from 11.12.89 to 24.10.90 (approximately 10 and ½ months), for which no prior permission was obtained from the competent authority. In his reply, the appellant has taken the plea that he was seriously ill between 11.12.89 and 24.10.90, which was beyond his control; he never intended to contravene any of the provisions of the service regulations. He submitted the copies of medical certificates issued by Doctors in support of his claim after rejoining the post. The medical reports were submitted after about 24 days. There was no allegation that the appellant’s unauthorized absence from duty was wilful and deliberate. The Inquiry Officer has also not held that appellant’s absence from duty was willful and deliberate. It is neither case of the Disciplinary Authority nor the Inquiry Officer that the medical reports submitted by the appellant were forged or fabricated or obtained for any consideration though he was not ill during the said period. In absence of such evidence and finding, it was not open to the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority to disbelieve the medical certificates issued by the Doctors without any valid reason and on the ground of 24 days delay.” 7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court between D. Dundi Babu and others vs. The Central Administrative Tribunal and others , [Writ Petition No.40940 of 2015] , wherein this Court held as follows: “10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of removal does not record that the applicant's unauthorized absence was willful. He submits that in the absence of such a finding, the unauthorized absence will not amount to any misconduct under Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966 (in short, the Rules 1966). He places reliance in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India , [Civil Appeal No.2106 of 2012] 20. In Krushnakant (supra), Rule 3 (1) (ii) and Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 came for consideration with reference to the unauthorized absence of the government servant therein. The said rule was the same as the present Rule 3 (1) (ii). In Krushnakant (supra), Rule 3 (1) (ii) and Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 came for consideration with reference to the unauthorized absence of the government servant therein. The said rule was the same as the present Rule 3 (1) (ii). The question for consideration was whether "unauthorized absence from duty" amounts to failure of devotion to duty or under Clause (iii), a behavior unbecoming of a Government servant. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that such question cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or because of compelling circumstances. 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that, 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 unauthorized 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 its control like illness, accident, hospitalization, etc. but in such case, the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behavior unbecoming of a Government servant. 22. In Krushnakant (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court further held that in a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorized absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct. In the said case, the disciplinary authority though recorded that the appellant was unauthorizedly absent from duty but failed to hold that the absence is wilful, it was held that the disciplinary authority as also the Appellate Authority wrongly held the Government servant guilty. The order of dismissal in that case and all the subsequent orders of affirmation were set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 24. In the present case, the finding has been recorded with respect to the applicant's unauthorized absence, but the disciplinary authority has failed to record that the absence was wilful. In the absence of any such finding, following the law as laid down in Krushnakant (supra), we hold that the appellant was not guilty of the charge of failure to maintain devotion to duty under Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. 26. In the absence of any such finding, following the law as laid down in Krushnakant (supra), we hold that the appellant was not guilty of the charge of failure to maintain devotion to duty under Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. 26. From the order of removal two things become evident i) the finding is recorded with respect to the unauthorized absence of 321 days and because of that the disciplinary authority held that the applicant failed to maintain devotion to duty and contravened Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Rules 1966, and (ii) the applicants' representation and the reasons for unauthorized absence were not considered by observing that “whatever may be the reasons, mere absenting for duty is not acceptable”. So in view of the disciplinary authority, the reasons were not relevant for consideration. Mere absence for duty was not acceptable. Whereas, we are of the view that it was only on consideration of the reasons assigned for unauthorized absence, that it was required to record the finding, if such unauthorized absence was wilful or not. If it was not wilful there was no violation of Rule 3 (1) (ii) i.e to maintain devotion to duty. In the absence of such consideration and absence of a specific finding that the unauthorized absence was wilful, the charge could not be said to be proved.” Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the above judgements, prays to allow the writ petition. 8. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, since the petitioner himself opted for personal hearing and did not prefer for conduct of oral enquiry and also submitted his written statement of defence to the 5 th respondent on 03.03.2017 duly admitting his absence for duty with effect from 30.12.2014 without leave or permission, examination of Medical Certificates and the Doctors does not arise. He further submits that the petitioner after acknowledged the show-cause notice dated 31.03.2016 of the 4 th respondent, submitted his further written statement defence to the 4 th respondent simply stating that he absented for duty due to illness, but he did not submitted any medical certificates issued by any authorized medical officer for the period of his absence for duty. He further submits that as the petitioner himself admitted before the respondents 4 and 5 that absented for duty and as he did not follow the prescribed procedure to avail medical leave in case of his sickness, the 4 th respondent awarded the punishment of removal from service to the petitioner. He further submits that the 3 rd respondent in R.O.No.443/2018 in C.No.27/ Appeal/2017, dated 30.11.2018, clearly stated the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is justified as per Rule 18 of the Fundamental Rules and G.O.Ms.No.260, dated 04.09.2003. He further submits that the 4 th respondent framed charges against the Petitioner vide C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 03.08.2016 and also appointed the 5 th respondent as Inquiring Authority vide C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 01.11.2016 to conduct an Oral Enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner acknowledged the same and appeared before the 5 th respondent on 28.02.2017, but the petitioner himself opted for personal hearing on 03.03.2017, submitted his Written Statement of Defence to the 5 th respondent duly admitting his absence for duty with effect from 30.12.2014 without leave or permission and hence, the 4 th respondent awarded the punishment of removal from service to the petitioner. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Perused the record. 10. As seen from the Minutes proceedings dated 03.03.2017, wherein it was observed that, “(C) The Charged Officer Sri P.Sravan Kumar, PC 1734, did not prefer any defence documents or defence witnesses on his behalf. (D)On 03.03.2017, the Charged Officer Sri P.Sravan Kumar, PC 1734, appeared before the under signed and requested the under signed to hear his version in persona and to dispose the Charges against him without any oral Enquiry. At the request of the Charged Officer Sri P.Sravan Kumar, PC 1734, the under signed obtained the Written defense Statement from the Charged Officer on 21.02.2016 where in the Charged Officer stated that “while he working in A.N.S, Kakinada, he fell in sickness due to illness of health. On that he had not attended the duty. Due to which he had not attended the Duty from 30.12.2014 F.N to 19.01.2015 A.N (21 Days) without any Medical or ELFP. In this connection the R.I. A.N.S to sent the report to the kind Supreintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada through proper channel. On that he had not attended the duty. Due to which he had not attended the Duty from 30.12.2014 F.N to 19.01.2015 A.N (21 Days) without any Medical or ELFP. In this connection the R.I. A.N.S to sent the report to the kind Supreintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada through proper channel. Basing on the report the kind Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada declared him as “Deserter” vide D.O.No.51/2015 and L.R.No.46/A-5/2015, dated 21.01.2015.” 11. It is also observed from the Minutes, wherein it was mentioned that, “I have carefully gone through the Article of Charge framed against the Charged Officer Sri P.Sravan Kumar, PC 1734 of A.N.S, D.P.O, connected record placed before the undersigned in the Oral Enquiry and Written defence statement of the Charged Officer.” 12. This Court further observed that, after issuing the above Minutes, the 4 th respondent has awarded the punishment of removal from service duly treating the period of absence for duty as Leave Without Pay (LWP), 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 ill-health. Moreover, he preferred an appeal and revision and both were dismissed by way of rejection. 13. As seen from the impugned order dated 12.06.2017, wherein it was observed that: “Further, the charged officer absented for duties for more than one year i.e. 30.12.2024 F.N to 02.08.2016 F.N. As per Rule 18 of Fundamental Rules and as per G.O.Ms.No.260 Dt. 04.09.2003 all the cases of unauthorized absence to duty for continuous period exceeding “One Year” the penalty of removal from service shall be imposed on the Government employee, after duly following the procedure laid down in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991.” 14. On a plain reading of the above, it is observed that, the 4 th respondent has issued on the proceedings, only on a perusal of the minute submitted by the Inspector of Police, P.C.R, Kakinada. It clearly establishes that, without going into the substance of the enquiry and without giving reason and without applying his mind, intentionally issued the proceedings awarding “Removal” from service. Therefore, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition while declaring the proceedings issued by the 4 th respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Therefore, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition while declaring the proceedings issued by the 4 th respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in D.No.475/2017 C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 12.06.2017 issued by the 4 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, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed