ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. This Writ Petition (TR) is filed challenging the impugned punishment order passed by respondent No.4 vide proceedings No.A6/38/PR/2006 (D.O.No.1884/2007) dated 29.09.2007, and the rejection orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 vide proceedings in R.O.No.57/2008 (Rc.No.13/A2/Appeal/NR-NZB/2008) and proceedings in R.O.No.12/ 2009 (Rc.No.7/7/D1/Revn-7/2009) respectively, dated 02.03.2008 and 30.01.2009, respectively, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard Sri G. Venkata Krishanaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable during August, 1990, and while working as such at Varni Police Station, he was granted three-days’ casual leave and one day’s permission by the Circle Inspector of Police, Bodhan Circle, from 11.07.2006 to 14.07.2006, instructing him to report for duty on 15.07.2006. However, during the said period, the petitioner fell sick due to chikungunya, and thus, he sought for extension of leave on 15.07.2006 through Telegram vide Receipt No.576 (Sl.No.117) of BSNL. It is submitted that while the petitioner was undergoing treatment during the said period, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.07.2006 passed by respondent No.4, on the alleged and fraudulent compliant from third parties that the petitioner was participating in election campaign. The petitioner was subsequently reinstated into service on 03.11.2026. However, neither a preliminary enquiry was conducted nor were any proceedings, either rejecting his request for extension of leave or directing him to report for duty, issued, before placing him under suspension. Thereafter, by recording the statements of the aforesaid complainants, the Sub Inspector sent a report dated13.10.2006, to respondent No.4. 4. It is further submitted that basing on the aforesaid report dated 13.10.2006, he was issued with a Memorandum of Charges dated 01.11.2006, leveling two charges, alleging that the petitioner was campaigning in elections and that he remained absent from 15.07.2006. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.11.2006, categorically denying both the charges, stating that he was ill due to chikungunya and that he did not participate in the alleged election campaigning. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.11.2006, categorically denying both the charges, stating that he was ill due to chikungunya and that he did not participate in the alleged election campaigning. However, without considering the said explanation, an enquiry officer was appointed by respondent No.4 and an enquiry was conducted, wherein, the aforesaid complainants were examined, who deposed the true facts of the case that the petitioner had not participated in the election campaigning. As such, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 08.08.2007 to respondent No.4, rightly holding charge II as not proved, while erroneously holding charge I as proved. Subsequently, respondent No.4 issued the Memo dated 06.09.2007 calling for further explanation from the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his representation on 14.09.2007, explaining his innocence and the fallacy in the findings of the enquiry officer with regard to charge I, and requested to exonerate him of the disciplinary proceedings. However, without considering the same, respondent No.4passed the order dated 29.09.2007, imposing a major penalty of RTSP by one stage for a period of one year with effect on future increments and pension and the suspension period of the petitioner from 23.07.2006 to 14.11.2006 was treated as not on duty, and the alleged absence period from 15.07.2006 to 22.07.2006 was treated as leave without pay. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3, which was erroneously rejected vide proceedings dated 02.03.2008. As such, the petitioner was constrained to file a revision before respondent No.2, which was also rejected vide proceedings dated 30.01.2009. 6. It is further submitted that the sole basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is the allegation that he had participated in the election campaigning, which was specifically disproved by the enquiry officer. However, the enquiry officer failed take into consideration the petitioner’s ill health due to chikungunya and erroneously held the charge, pertaining to his absence, as proved. Further, even respondent No.4 has failed to take into consideration the defense of the petitioner in his final written statement, and unilaterally imposed the impugned penalty based on a perverse finding of the enquiry officer. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2007, 02.03.2008 and 30.01.2009 issued by respondent Nos.4, 3 and 2 respectively. 7. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2007, 02.03.2008 and 30.01.2009 issued by respondent Nos.4, 3 and 2 respectively. 7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that on 10.07.2006, the petitioner was sanctioned three days’ casual leave and one day’s permission, with directions to report to duty on 15.07.2006. However, the petitioner had not only failed to report for duty but also remained unauthorizedly absent. Further, it has come to the knowledge of the respondents that the petitioner, being a Government employee, was canvassing in the Sarpanch elections. As such, he was initially placed under suspension, w.e.f., 23.07.2006, and subsequently, upon considering his representation, he was reinstated into service, w.e.f., 15.11.2006. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued with the Charge Memo dated 01.11.2006, for which, he submitted an explanation on 11.12.2006. However, since the said explanation was found unconvincing, an enquiry officer was appointed vide proceedings dated 21.12.2006, and after conducting an enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 08.08.2007, holding the charge pertaining to the petitioner’s absence as proved, while the other charge was held as not proved. Subsequently, a final explanation was called for from the petitioner, which was submitted by him on 14.09.2007, but the same was yet again not satisfactory. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who claims the reason for his absence as his ill health due to chikungunya, failed to follow the due procedure of reporting the same before the concerned authorities. Further, the claim of the petitioner that a Telegram was sent on 15.07.2006 is also incorrect, as no such Telegram was ever received by the respondents. Therefore, considering the entire material available, respondent No.4 passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2007, awarding the major penalty of RTSP by one stage for a period of one year with effect on his future increments and pension, by treating his absence period as leave without pay and the suspension period as not on duty. Further, the appeal and revision petitions preferred by the petitioner were also rightly dismissed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively, vide orders dated 02.03.2008 and 30.01.2009, respectively. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 9. Further, the appeal and revision petitions preferred by the petitioner were also rightly dismissed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively, vide orders dated 02.03.2008 and 30.01.2009, respectively. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 9. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo dated01.11.2006, alleging his unauthorized absence, w.e.f., 15.07.2006, and campaigning in the Sarpanch elections. An enquiry was conducted and concluded with the enquiry officer submitting his report dated 08.08.2007, holding the latter charge, pertaining to the petitioner’s alleged election campaigning, as not proved, while the charge with regard to his absence as proved. Basing on the same, vide proceedings dated 29.09.2007, the petitioner was imposed with the impugned major punishment of RTSP by one stage for a period of one year with effect of his future increments and pension, besides the treatment of his absence period as leave without pay and the suspension period as not on duty. 10. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner categorically asserts that he was sick due to chikungunya and was undergoing treatment during the said period, whereas, the respondents vehemently oppose this claim, stating that the petitioner failed to follow the due procedure of availing a medical leave, in case of his ill-health. As can be seen from the enquiry report, the petitioner had produced a prescription given by one Gayathri Hospital, Nizamabad, but failed to produce a Medical Certificate from the Government Medical Officer. 11. In this connection, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra), wherein, it was categorically held that the unauthorized absence does not, at all times, amount to misconduct, more particularly, when such absence is due to compelling circumstances, and it was also held that the disciplinary authority is required to prove such absence is willful. The relevant excerpt of the said decision reads as under: “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 relevant excerpt of the said decision reads as under: “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. 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. 11. From the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it is clear that the petitioner’s absence was due the compelling medical circumstances, beyond his control. Moreover, the disciplinary authority failed to prove the petitioner’s absence as a deliberate or willful one, rather held the charge as proved, on a technical ground that the petitioner failed to follow due procedure. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned punishment order is wholly unsustainable and it is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (TR) is allowed setting aside the impugned punishment order vide proceedings No.A6/38/PR/2006 (D.O.No.1884/2007) dated 29.09.2007 issued by respondent No.4, and the orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 vide proceedings in R.O.No.57/2008 (Rc.No.13/A2/Appeal/NR-NZB/2008) and proceedings in R.O.No.12/2009 (Rc.No.7/7/D1/Revn-7/2009)respectively, dated 02.03.2008 and 30.01.2009, respectively. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.