Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ganesh Kumar Goreila vs The Director Of General L C Itbpf For ... on 25 February, 2026
APHC010760502013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 313/2013
Between:
1. GANESH KUMAR GOREILA, MALLESH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC: C ' COMPANY, 20 ITBP R/O GOVIDNA PURAM, ST COLONY,
H.NO.1-383, PUNDI POST, VAJRAPUKOTHURU MANDAL,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT (A.P).
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL L C ITBPF FOR INFORMATION P 0,
AIRPORT, CHANDIGARH, U.T.[UNION TERRITORY]
2. THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER PERS2 DTE GENERAL,
ITB POLICE FOR INFORMATION, NEW DELHI.
3. THE COMMANDANT 20 B N INDIAN TIBET BORDER, POLICELLTBP]
C/O 99 APO, NEW DELHI.
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDIAN TIBET BORDER POLICE ITBP,
HOME AFFAIRS, C.G.O.COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue, a writ or order or orders or more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the respondents passed the impugned dismissal order dated.14-11-2011 and quash the same as illegal and unjust and to consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for the reinstatement into the services of ITBP and to hold that the action of the 2 respondents is improper, unjust and bad under law and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other and further order or orders, as this Honourable Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 405 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the writ petition for fixed a final hearing petition pending disposal of the writ petition IA NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP 7904 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. UMASANKAR LOKANADHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A SAMIR KUMAR REDDY (SC FOR CGSC)
2. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following:3
Order:-
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of removal dated 14.10.2011 whereby the petitioner, who was working as a Constable in the respondent unit, was removed from service for his unauthorized absence.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of removal is bad in law and that the petitioner had applied for leave for a period of two (02) months as his mother met with a road accident on 04.11.2010. The authority sanctioned leave from 07.01.2011 to 26.01.2011. It is stated in the affidavit that at that time his mother was admitted in a private hospital and she needed the assistance of somebody to look after her, as the petitioner's brother and sister were residing elsewhere and the petitioner's father was also an old man. Apart from the petitioner, there was nobody else to take care of his mother. As such, the petitioner sought leave. As the petitioner did not report back to duty on 27.01.2011, communication was sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police informing the petitioner to report to duty immediately.
3. However, as there was no response from the petitioner, the respondent authority issued the impugned proceedings removing the petitioner from service. It is submitted that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity before imposing the punishment of removal from service. It is also submitted that the letter issued by the respondents dated 02.02.2011 was not received by the petitioner and, as such, he could not respond in time. Though the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam, addressed Letter No.869 to arrest the petitioner and report him to Headquarters (Vahini), the Superintendent of 4 Police, Srikakulam, neither arrested the petitioner nor sent any information about any communication received. An enquiry was initiated and the enquiry officer submitted a report on 12.05.2011 and, treating that the petitioner was not willing to serve the respondent entity, the impugned proceedings were issued.
4. Sri Appa Rao, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner joined duty as a Police Constable (General Duty) and on 12.01.2010 the petitioner had stolen an ATM card of his colleague and withdrew money. The petitioner was awarded a punishment of 28 days' force custody with effect from 28.09.2010 to 25.10.2010 under Section 33(a) of the ITBP Act, 1992. The petitioner had pleaded guilty at that point of time. The petitioner had overstayed for 124 days after having been granted 10 days of casual leave with effect from 03.05.2010 to 03.09.2010.
Apart from that, the petitioner submitted a death certificate of his mother dated 02.01.2011 and the date of death is mentioned as 01.01.2011.
5. If that be the case, the claim of the petitioner, even as per the writ affidavit, that he had to attend to his mother and sought for additional leave is disbelievable. It is also submitted that the respondents have taken all required measures before passing the impugned orders and the respondent entity, being a disciplined uniformed force, expects better commitment from the men in uniform. The conduct of the petitioner in absconding from duty and submitting a copy of the death certificate of his mother and at the same time 5 claiming that he had to attend to his ailing mother speaks contrary to the document submitted by the petitioner.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
7. The petitioner admittedly had applied for leave for a period of two (02) months in the month of January 2011. Though leave was sanctioned for a period of twenty (20) days, he did not report back to duty. The ground taken by the petitioner is that he had to attend to his ailing mother who was admitted in a private hospital.
8. The annexures along with the counter speak otherwise of the grounds taken in the writ petition. When the petitioner's mother passed away on 01.01.2011, there is no question of the petitioner attending to his mother who was admitted in a private hospital. The petitioner admittedly has approached this Court by suppressing the material facts and the counter submitted along with the annexures would amply clarify that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands by suppressing facts. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 25.02.2026 PNS