Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Hon'Ble Sri Justice M.Ganga Rao vs Hon'Ble Sri Justice M.Ganga Rao on 2 November, 2022
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
and
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS
WRIT PETITION No.23397 of 2022
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Ganga Rao) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records in O.A.No.5063 of 2014 dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and consequently quash the impugned proceedings dated 28.01.2011 issued by the 1st respondent and orders in O.A.No.5063 of 2014 dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal .
2. The petitioner was appointed as Extension Officer (PR&RD) vide proceedings dated 03.08.1996 and joined duty on 19.09.1996. She submitted a leave letter for sanction of leave for a period of one year from October, 1997 and went to United States of America. She reported to duty on 17.08.2002 before the 2nd respondent who did not allow her to join duty. The 2nd respondent issued Charge Memo dated 24.10.2003 framing three charges and initiated disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry officer is appointed who conducted enquiry and submitted his enquiry reported on 25.2.2009 holding the charge No.1 as proved. The 1st respondent issued show cause notice dated 29.5.2009. After considering the explanation submitted by the 2 petitioner, the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 28.01.2011 stating that the petitioner is deemed to have resigned from service. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.5063 of 2014 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal after elaborate discussion dismissed the Original Application on 29.1.2018. Questioning the order passed by the Tribunal and the impugned proceedings, the writ petition came to be filed.
3. Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents having initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules and having conducted enquiry and thereafter issuing show cause notice, ought to have concluded the disciplinary proceedings as per APCS(CCA) Rules. But, the respondents have issued the impugned proceedings under F.R 18-A(a), which is illegal and arbitrary. The said F.R 18-A(a) is not applicable to the petitioner. If the disciplinary proceedings are concluded as per APCS (CCA) Rules, at least the petitioner would get the benefits for the service rendered by her.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I would contend that the petitioner immediately after joining service even before completion of the probation period left the job and went abroad by making application for grant of leave and the same was forwarded to the higher authority but no leave waas sanctioned. Without there being any sanctioned leave and without obtaining any permission, she left the country and 3 after more than 4 ½ years, she came back and requested the respondents to permit her to join duty. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Enquiry was conducted duly affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and after following the procedure, the respondents have issued the impugned show cause notice dated 28.1.2011 calling explanation as to why she shall not be treated as deemed to have resigned from service. The Tribunal having considered all the aspects regarding rule position and law on the subject, rightly dismissed the Original Application and requires no interference by this Court.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.5063 of 2014 dated 19.01.2018, wherein and whereby she sought for a direction to the respondents therein to reinstate her into service. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application on the ground that the Head of the Department is competent to issue the impugned orders in exercise of the powers conferred under F.R.18-A(a) read with Rule 5-B of the A.P.Leave Rules. The Tribunal has passed an elaborate order dealing with the rule position and the legal position and there is no error warranting interference by this Court. The contention of the counsel for the 4 petitioner that having initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 20 of APCS(CCA) Rules, 1991, they cannot invoke F.R.18-(A)(a) for issuing the impugned show cause notice, cannot stand before the eye of law. The petitioner immediately on joining service left the country without proper sanction of leave and permission and the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits.
6. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________ M.GANGA RAO, J __________________ V. SRINIVAS, J Date: 02.11.2022 CSR 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS WRIT PETITION No.23397 OF 2022 Date: 02.11.2022 CSR