Telangana High Court
Dr. I. Raja Kiran Kumar Goud, vs The Director Of Medical Education, on 5 August, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+W.P.Nos.17735 of 2024 and 11675 of 2025
% 04-08-2025
# Dr.I.Raja Kiran Kumar Goud.
.... Petitioner
Vs.
Director of Medical Education, State of Telangana, Hyderabad
and others.
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.V.Krishnaiah
Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Services-II
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1.(2023) 20 Supreme Court Cases 817
2.2022 Law Suit (SC) 1486
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
W.P.Nos.17735 of 2024 and 11675 of 2025
Between:
# Dr.I.Raja Kiran Kumar Goud.
.... Petitioner
Vs.
Director of Medical Education, State of Telangana, Hyderabad
and others.
.... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 04.08.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.17735 of 2024 and 11675 of 2025
COMMON ORDER :-
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions and the petitioner are one and the same, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.17735 of 2024 are discussed hereunder :-
4. W.P.No.17735 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief :-
"..... to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the 1st respondent by Proceedings Rc.No.3899/V1C/2014, dated 29.10.2014 including the proceedings Rc.No.3899/V1C/2014, dated 13.11.2015 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential Memo No.5096/VC.2/2022-2, dated 26.07.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide, void and without jurisdiction and set aside the 4 same and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to forthwith consider and promote the petitioner as Associate Professor (Plastic Surgery) as per seniority along with others, without reference to the proceedings Rc.No. 3899/V1C/2014, dated 13.11.2015 issued by the 1st respondent .....".
5. The brief facts in W.P.No.17735 of 2024 are as follows :-
(i) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in General Surgery and joined in service on 10.11.2006, and subsequently, he acquired M.C.H. qualification and later he got posting orders as Assistant Professor in the Department of Plastic Surgery in Osmania Medical College in 2014. The petitioner is fully eligible and qualified for being promoted to the post of Associate Professor (Plastic Surgery), as he is the senior most Associate Professor in Plastic Surgery under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent. However, the respondents are not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion on the ground of imposing punishment vide proceedings dated 13.11.2015, wherein the 1st respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect, besides treating the unauthorized absence from
06.05.2007 to 26.07.2014 as 'dies-non'.
5
(ii) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent vide Memo No.2348/VC/2/ 2015-2, dated 10.05.2016, rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.05.2016, the petitioner again filed an appeal before the Special Chief Secretary to the Government, who inturn rejected the appeal vide Memo No. 2348/VC-2/2015-3, dated 27.02.2020 without considering the contentions raised in the appeal and without taking into consideration the findings of the enquiry officer holding that framing the charges of unauthorized absence from duty is not justified. Further aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Secretary to Government, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC) Department on 11.05.2022, who also rejected the appeal vide Memo No.5096/VC.2/2022-2, dated 26.07.2022. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent issued a charge memo on 29.10.2014 framing the charge of unauthorized absence with effect from 06.05.2007 till the petitioner reported to duty without mentioning any date. Even though the petitioner reported to duty in the year 2010, the respondents issued a posting order only in 2014. The petitioner 6 has submitted an explanation to the charge memo on 23.12.2014, but the 1st respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner in terms of Rule 20 of the C.C.A. Rules appointed the Principal, Osmania Medical College as an Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry submitted report on 13.07.2015 holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved. However, the 1st respondent, without giving any reasons to differ with the report of the Enquiry Officer and without looking into the report of the Enquiry Officer, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 24.08.2015 as if the Enquiry Officer held that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. The 1st respondent is not competent to initiate departmental proceedings and imposition of punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 13.11.2015 is without jurisdiction and contrary to C.C.A. Rules and without differing with the Enquiry Officer's report is held to be bad by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the 1st respondent called particulars from the Unit Officers to effect promotion to the post of Associate Professor in 7 various Departments, including the Plastic Surgery and even though the competent authority sent particulars of the petitioner, the 1st respondent is not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion on the ground of imposing the punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 13.11.2015, which is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as there is no statutory rule issued to the effect that the officers, who have undergone punishment shall not be considered for promotion inasmuch as the post of Associate Professor is a selection post and it is for the D.P.C. to examine the entire facts whether to recommend the case or not and based on any Executive instructions, the authorities cannot deny without there being any Statutory Rules giving power to the authorities to defer or withhold promotion. Therefore, the impugned punishment order is liable to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that when the Enquiry Officer held that framing the charges of unauthorized absence from duty is not justified, the 1st respondent cannot impose any punishment without giving 8 any valid reasons for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the Government had rejected the appeal/revision/review filed by the petitioner by non-speaking order, without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, both on facts and law. Therefore, prays that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition setting aside the impugned punishment order and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Associate Professor.
10. While reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor of Surgery during the 2006 recruitment and joined in service on 10.11.2006. He was unauthorizedly absent from 01.06.2007. During his absence, he joined the M.ch (Plastic Surgery) in the 2011 batch from 01.08.2011 to 31.05.2014 at Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad. The Petitioner submitted a representation dated 9 26.07.2014 for reposting order as Assistant Professor Plastic Surgery and, accordingly, he was posted at Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, vide proceedings Rc.No.3899/D4/2014, dated 29.09.2014 of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has initiated departmental proceedings on 29.10.2014 against the petitioner for his unauthorized absence from 06.05.2007 to 26.07.2014 as per CCA Rules, 1991. After following the due procedure, the petitioner was imposed a major punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect, besides treating the period of absence as 'Dies-non' vide proceedings Rc.No. 3899/VIC/2014, dated 13.11.2015.
11. During the period of unauthorized absence, he also joined the M.ch Plastic Surgery Course from 01.08.2011 to 31.05.2014 and reported back to duty, informing of acquiring the Super Speciality qualification. He was issued reposting orders for the post of Assistant Professor of Plastic Surgery, pending departmental action, as per rules in vogue.
12. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted a representation on 16.09.2010, but he joined in M.ch (Plastic Surgery) over the period from 2011 to 2014. Later, vide his 10 representation dated 26.07.2014, sought reposting back in service, duly informing of acquiring the Super Speciality qualifications. Hence he was issued reposting orders in 2014 as Assistant Professor of Plastic Surgery pending departmental action.
13. It is further contended that the 1st respondent, being the competent disciplinary authority, has taken action against the petitioner as postulated under Rule 21 sub-rule (2) of A.P.C.S.(CCA) Rules, 1991, which reads as under :-
"The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the enquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiry authority a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he desires, his written representation of submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether report is favorable or not to the Government servant."
14. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent requesting that he may be exonerated from the punishment. The respondent authorities 11 examined the appeal of the petitioner and rejected vide Memo dated 10.05.2016. The petitioner submitted another appeal to consider the period from 2007 to 2011 as extraordinary leave and the period from 2011 to 2014 as Study leave and waive the punishment. The 3rd respondent vide Memo dated 27.02.2020 rejected the appeal, as there are no fresh grounds. Again, the petitioner submitted another representation on 11.05.2022 to the 3rd respondent requesting to waive the punishment, which was also examined and rejected vide Memo dated 26.07.2022.
15. It is further contended that the petitioner has submitted his particulars for promotion to the post of Associate Professor of Plastic Surgery, still in view of imposing of punishment against the petitioner, his candidature was not considered for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.342, dated 04.08.1997. The 1st respondent is competent to take administrative decisions, including departmental action for the post of the petitioner, in accordance with the CCA Rules, 1991. The petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty for the period from 06.05.2007 to 26.07.2014, and during the said period, he had joined and pursued M.ch Plastic Surgery without any prior permission or intimation. The 3rd respondent, being the next appellate 12 authority, examined the appeals of the petitioner and rejected them thrice as per the rules in vogue. Since the petitioner was imposed the punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect, his candidature was not considered for promotion to the post of Associate Professor Plastic Surgery in terms of G.O.Ms.No.342, dated 04.08.1997.
16. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that after a lapse of nine years, the petitioner approached this Court seeking promotion without reference to the punishment orders issued during 2015. The authorities also thrice confirmed that the 1st respondent being the competent authority rightly imposed the punishment against the petitioner. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
17. In support of his contentions, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.P.No.36516 of 2024, dated 03.02.2025, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. RAJMATI 13 SINGH 1 and STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. RAJMATI SINGH 2.
18. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
The findings of this Court:-
19. The main contention of the respondents is that the authority did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion was not considered on the ground of delay and imposition of major punishment against the petitioner.
20. The petitioner made an application seeking leave before the respondent authorities on 06.05.2007, but the respondents neither accepted nor rejected the leave application submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner after three and half years again made a representation on 16.09.2010 for rejoining the duty, but did not respond. The concerned slept over the representations of the petitioner for several years. After issuance of reposting orders, the 1st respondent issued proceedings Rc.No.3899/ VIC/2014, dated 29.10.2014, framing the following charge against the petitioner.
1 (2023) 20 Supreme Court Cases 817 2 2022 Law Suit (SC) 1486 14 "That Dr. L. Raja Kiran Kumar Goud, Assistant Professor of Plastic Surgery, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad is on unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f 06/05/2007 to bill he reported for duty due to which much inconvenience is being caused to the hospital work and patient car. This shows his lack of devotion to the profession, thereby causing dislocation of hospital work, patient care and teaching programme.
Statement of articles of imputation of unauthorized absence of Dr has been on unauthorized from duty w.e.f 06.05.2007 to till due to which necessary inconvenience is caused and the hospital work was badly affected and causing dislocation of the work hospital."
21. Pursuant to the above charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 23.12.2014 stating as follows :-
"My father suffered cerebral stroke in the month of may 2007 and as I am the only son I needed to support him with continuous medical care.
Due to being ignorant of rules and lack of proper guidance I continued to be on absence up to 15-09-2010 during course of which I did not leave the country as I have not even applied for passport so far.
I have reported on 16-09-2010 at the office of the Director of Medical Education from the leave period requesting to issue orders permitting me resume my duties vide ref no.3, but for unknown reasons I did not receive any information from you.15
Meanwhile I was selected for admission in to super specialty course (M.Ch. plastic surgery in Gandhi Medical College vide ref. no.5 and I joined the course on 01-08-2011.
I represented again (second time) at the office of the Director of Medical Education to take me to the service while pursuing my super specialty course vide ref.4.But unfortunately I have not even informed about the status of my job.
During my super specialty course I was very much regular to my duties & I worked to the satisfaction of my professor & other senior staff vide Ref. no.6.
I passed my M.Ch. course in July 2014 vide ref.7 and after representing for the third time I have got the reposting orders from the Director of Medical Education posting as assistant professor of plastic surgery at Osmania Medical College on 29-09-2014 where I reported to duty on the same day le. 29 09-2014. After i reported back to duty I have been rendering continuous service without any leaves and to the utmost satisfaction of my superiors till to date without any adverse remarks.
I promise you to continue in government service till my retirement and I will work with the same enthusiasm I have been showing now.
I have been served with a charge memo vide memo Rc no. 3899/V1C/2014, dated 29-10-2014 of The Director of Medical Education, Telangana state, Hyderabad for which I am here with submitting the explanation as stated above.
16
Reply to charge 1
I was unauthorizedly absent from duty from
06-05-2007 due to my father's ill health who suffered cerebral stroke and I was constrained to keep away from my duties since no other family member is there to look after my old aged father. The relevant medical records are enclosed for your kind reference vide ref. no2. Further I would like to inform you that I am very much interested in doing Government service to work in teaching hospitals to serve poor and needy patients.
Reply to charge 2 I have not intentionally kept away from the hospital work as my father was totally dependent on me and I was to look after him in the daily needs of my father. And I assure that I will continue in Government service till the end of my retirement to serve poor & needy patients and in teaching programmes to the students (under graduates & post graduates).
I request you to consider my explanation on humanitarian grounds which are facts and I request you to drop further action against me in this regard duły regularizing the leave period from 06-05-2007 to 31 07- 2011 as EOL on private affairs, and the period between 01- 08-2011 to 28-09-2014 as study leav which I shall be ever grateful to you."
22. Not satisfied with the above explanation of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have appointed an Enquiry Officer 17 i.e., Principal, OMC, Hyderabad, under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. He has completed the enquiry and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before him, he has prepared the enquiry report, which reads as under :-
"On the basis of the documentary and oral evidences adduced in the case before me and in view of the reasons given above, I hold that the finding for the charges against Dr.L.Raja Kiran Kumar are given as follows:-
"Charge No.1 (a) Since the authority neither rejected his applied leave from 06-05-2007 onwards, nor directed to report back for duty and not processed the joining reports submitted by him on 16-09-2010 and 13-11- 2013, I feel that framing the charges of unauthorized absence from duty is not justified.
(b) In case, even though the charged officer not submitted any leave applications, it is the responsibility of the disciplinary authority/ appointing authority to give a notice instructing him to join duty since his residential address is available in the file."
23. It is to be seen that after conducting a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that framing of charges of unauthorized absence from duty is not justified. However, without even looking into the findings given by the Enquiry Officer in the 18 enquiry report, the 1st respondent issued show-cause notice, dated 24.08.2015, stating as follows :-
"Dr.I.Raja Kiran Kumar Goud is directed to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of this memo, as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the charge of unauthorized absence w.e.f. 06.05.2007 to 29.09.2014 which was held proved during the enquiry failing which it will be construed that he has no explanation to submit and further action will be taken based on the material available."
24. For the said show-cause notice, the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 17.10.2015 stating as follows :-
"Charge no.1 (a). Since the authority neither rejected his applied leave from 06-05-2007 onwards, nor directed to report back for duty and not processed the joining reports submitted by him on 16-09-2010 and 13-11-2013, I feel that framing the charges of unauthorized absence from duty is not justified.
(b).In case, even though the charged officer not submitted any leave applications, it is the responsibility of the disciplinary authority/appointing authority to give a notice instructing him to join duty since his residential address is available in the file."
In the above context, I submit for your kind perusal that the findings of the Enquiry Officer has declared that the charges against me are not justified, where as, it has 19 mentioned in the show cause notice that the charges are held proved.
Therefore I request the kind authority to drop the charges framed against me and drop the further action basing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer."
25. It is surprising to note that before conducting disciplinary proceedings or issuing a show-cause notice, the authorities have not even gone through the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which are to the effect that :-
"Since the authority neither rejected his appeal leave from 06.05.2007 onwards, nor directed to report back for duty and not processed the joining reports submitted by him on 16.09.2010 and 13.11.2013, I feel that framing the charges of unauthorized absence from duty is not justified."
26. Furthermore, contrary to the findings in the enquiry report, the 1st respondent issued a show-cause notice stating that charge No.1 had been proved. It clearly shows that either the respondent authorities might not have gone through the findings of the enquiry report and issued the show-cause notice to the petitioner intentionally to harass the petitioner. Further, surprisingly, even when the petitioner filed an appeal three times, the 3rd respondent also, without looking into the findings of the 20 Enquiry Officer, erroneously rejected the appeals thrice, which clearly shows the negligent attitude of the respondents, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
27. As per the enquiry officer's report, once the petitioner applied for leave from 06.05.2007 onwards, the authorities have to consider or reject the leave application or direct the petitioner to join duty. Without doing anything from 06.05.2007 till initiation of the departmental proceedings in the year 2014, the respondents slept over the representation of the petitioner, which is nothing but unlawful and against the principles of natural justice and also a violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
28. In view of such laxity and improper administration by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Unfortunately, to cover up the laches on their part, the respondents' with a malicious intention, imposed the major punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect for unauthorized absence of the petitioner. When the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly, the respondents must issue a notice directing the petitioner to join 21 duty immediately. In the instant case, the only mistake committed by the petitioner is that he has not applied for leave immediately. After some time, he made an application seeking leave on account of the ill-health of his father. When the petitioner made an application seeking leave, the respondents ought to have accepted or rejected the same based on the circumstances. But, without doing so, the respondents have neglected the leave application for several years and later imposed the punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect, which is illegal and unconstitutional and also it amounts to travesty of justice.
29. While submitting the explanation to the show-cause notice, the petitioner stated that due to the ill-health of his father, who suffered a cerebral stroke, he could not apply for leave immediately, and thereafter, he made an application seeking leave. Once the petitioner applied for leave, the respondents ought to have taken action either accepting or rejecting the said leave application. But, without doing so, the respondents have slept over the leave application for several years, and the said action is bad in law as per the enquiry report. Another surprising thing to be noted is that though the Enquiry Officer 22 recorded a finding in the enquiry report stating that the action of the respondents is not justified, contrary to the said finding, the 1st respondent issued show-cause notice to the petitioner stating that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved and imposed the major punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect, which indicates the negligent and improper administration by the authorities.
30. Another unfortunate thing is that in the counter filed by the 1st respondent, there is no whisper about conducting of enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The respondents are only contending that there is a delay of nine years in approaching this Court seeking promotion without reference to the imposition of punishment vide proceedings dated 13.11.2015. It is not known how the respondents concluded that there is a delay of nine years in approaching the court. When the petitioner is approaching the higher authorities by filing appeals, and lastly when the 3rd respondent passed final rejection order in the year 2022, it cannot be said that there is a delay of nine years. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has approached the Court with a delay of nine years cannot be accepted. The 3rd respondent has rejected the appeal on 23 26.07.2022 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.17735 of 2024 on 05.07.2024. Therefore, the respondents cannot count the period from the date of imposing the punishment. For all these years, the petitioner has been pursing the matter by way of filing appeals and having loss the battle before the authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking justice.
31. The decision in W.P.No.36516 of 2024. relied upon by the learned Government Pleader, a Division Bench of this Court, dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay of more than 5½ years. In the said case, after dismissal from service on 09.04.2019, the petitioner herein had approached the Court with a delay of 5½ years, and hence, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case.
32. In the case on hand, the petitioner is not dismissed from service, and he applied for leave, which has not been acted upon by the respondent authorities for several years, either accepting or rejecting it, nor the authorities directed the petitioner to join duty. Without doing anything, the authorities slept over the leave application without passing any orders. In view of the 24 negligence of administration by the authorities, no one can be made to suffer.
33. In STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS VS.
RAJMATI SINGH 3 , relied upon by the learned Government Pleader for Services, the Apex Court held as follows :-
20. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the facts in this case, coupled with the legal principles cited above, we are satisfied that the claim of the respondent is stale, highly belated, time barred, and the same ought not to have been entertained by the Tribunal or the High Court after a span of over three decades.
22. Having held so, let us look into the conduct of the appellants as well. It is true that the State Information Commission had no authority to intrude into a service dispute and pass an inappropriate order like dated 05.03.2009. The Tribunal, however, corrected that error and turned down the respondent's claims being barred by limitation. That order was nullified by the High Court vide impugned Judgment dated 02.07.2012. The appellants sat silent and accepted that verdict without any murmur. The said Judgment has, in a way, attained finality, though it is legally unsustainable. Having accepted that Judgment, the appellants ought to have been prepared to face the next consequence which fell on them when the Tribunal directed them to decide the respondent's representations afresh. This led to the revival of a ghost claim after over 30 years. The appellants were expected to immediately understand the implications and consequences of events 3 2022 Law Suit (SC) 1486 25 as they unfolded but they remained silent on the judgment dated 02.07.2012. Under these circumstances, the appellants are also partially responsible for engendering hope in respondent at a juncture when she was nearing the age of superannuation.
34. In the above case, the respondent therein appears to have made several representations one after the other, but did not deem it appropriate to approach any judicial or quasi-judicial forum.
35. In the case on hand, there is no question of making several representations. Only due to unavoidable reasons, the petitioner did not submit the leave application for three years. Even after three years, once the petitioner approached the authorities, the authorities ought to have passed any orders on the said leave application. But, for the reasons best known to them, the respondents kept silent on the representation for a long time. Finally, the authorities allowed the petitioner to join duty in the year 2014.
36. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is administrative delay on the part of the respondent authorities in passing orders on the leave letter 26 submitted by the petitioner either rejecting or accepting the same or issuing notice to the petitioner directing him to report to duty immediately, as rightly mentioned in the enquiry report, issuing of charges against the petitioner is unjustified. In the said circumstances, the major punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect imposed by the respondent authorities is highly irrational and the same is liable to be modified.
37. So far as the behaviour of the petitioner is concerned, though he has not applied for leave due to the ill-health of his father, he would have approached the respondent authorities by way of mail or letters or telephonic conversation. The negligence on the part of the petitioner also cannot be appreciated. Being a responsible Doctor, the petitioner expected to inform the authorities concerned about his absence immediately or within a stipulated time.
38. Therefore, keeping in view the laches on the part of both the parties, the punishment of stoppage of seven increments with cumulative effect is liable to be modified, and it is accordingly 27 modified as imposing the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect.
39. In view of the above modification, the petitioner is not entitled for any promotion as per G.O.Ms.No.342, General Administration Department, dated 04.08.1997.
40. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.17735 of 2024 and W.P.No.11675 of 2025 are disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 05.08.2025 Note:
L.R.Copy to be marked (B/o) Prv