Telangana High Court
K. Ravi Chandra vs The State Of Telangana on 22 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.13069 OF 2021
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in C.No.738/A4/2011-13 dt.28.08.2013 imposing a punishment of censure and treating the period from 11.03.2011 to 30.11.2012 as 'not on duty' and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.822/T3/2015 dt.22.04.2016 in enhancing the punishment to that of PPI (postponement of increment) for 2 years without affect on future increments and pension and treating the period from 11.03.2011 to 29.11.2012 as 'not on duty' as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the proceedings dt.28.08.2013 and also dt.22.04.2016 and to direct the respondents to regularize the period from 11.03.2011 to 30.11.2012 as EOL (extraordinary leave) with all consequential benefits like seniority and pay and to pass such other order or orders.
W.P.No.13069 of 20212
2. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 stating that he had filed a revision before the 1st respondent and the same was rejected vide Memo No.1110/Ser-II/A2/2017 dt.13.04.2017 and inadvertently, the same was also not challenged in this Writ Petition and therefore, the petitioner sought to amend the prayer challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Memo No.1110/Ser-II/A2/2017 dt.13.04.2017 as well. Vide orders dt.10.07.2024, this Court has allowed the amendment of the prayer and accordingly, there is challenge to the revision order dt.13.04.2017 as well.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a direct recruit to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Communications) in the Police Radio Organization in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh on 17.01.1991 through the selection conducted by the State Level Recruitment Board and after completing 9 (nine) months induction training at the Police Training College at Amberpet, Hyderabad, he was posted to the office of the Inspector (Communications), Karimnagar and worked there upto December, 1992 and thereafter, at Kurnool upto 1995 and on deputation in Police Training College, Amberpet, Hyderabad upto December, 1997 and subsequently he was repatriated to his parent Unit in December, W.P.No.13069 of 2021 3 1997 and worked upto July, 2004 and was again deputed to work in Intelligence Department, Hyderabad from July, 2002 to January, 2006 and subsequently was transferred to his parent Unit and worked in MMC Section from 01.02.2006 to 21.02.2012 and Training Section from 24.12.2012 to 30.04.2017 and at the time of filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner was working at Grey Hounds, Telangana, Hyderabad on deputation in the rank of Inspector (Communications) from 01.05.2017. It is submitted that when the petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police (Communications), he had made a representation to permit him to take up employment abroad for a period of 4 years and 11 months in terms of G.O.Ms.No.214, Finance and Planning (FW.FR.I) Department, dt.03.09.1996, and the Director General of Police, vide Lr.Rc.No.1179/E2/2001 dt.22.03.2002, has recommended for sanction of leave for a period of 4 years and 11 months. As he was fully eligible to take up appointment abroad, the petitioner was sanctioned EOL for a period of 4 years and 11 months by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.933, Home (Police-Budget) Department, dt.29.07.2002 subject to production of appointment letter securing employment abroad in terms of G.O.Ms.No.214, Finance & Planning (FW.FR-I) Department, dt.03.09.1996. It is submitted that the W.P.No.13069 of 2021 4 petitioner could not secure employment immediately. He could secure appointment in Ethiopia after much persuasion and vide letter dt.16.03.2011, the Additional Director General of Police (Technical Services) holding additional charge of the Director, Police Communications, A.P., Hyderabad had addressed a letter to the Director General of Police in this regard vide C.No.629/A1/2011 as to whether the petitioner can be permitted to avail EOL after sanction of the same 9 years ago and in the meantime, the petitioner boarded the flight to Ethiopia along with his family members on 10.03.2011. However, through e-mail letter dt.08.11.2011, the 3rd respondent had issued orders in D.O.No.408/2011 in C.No.738/A4/2011 dt.21.10.2011 declaring the petitioner as 'Deserter' from 11.03.2011 as per Order No.184 of Part-I of A.P. Police Manual Volume-I and instructed the petitioner to appear before the enquiry officer within a period of two months from the date of desertion or within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. It is submitted that on receipt of the said letter, the petitioner has obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from his employer abroad and joined his normal duties on 21.02.2012 duly availing the EOL from 10.03.2011 to 20.02.2012. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has also served the 'Deserter' order personally on 21.02.2012 and subsequently W.P.No.13069 of 2021 5 also addressed a letter dt.03.03.2012 to the 2nd respondent to consider and ratify the EOL for a period of 4 years and 11 months vide G.O.Rt.No.933 dt.29.07.2002. It is submitted that thereafter, the 2nd respondent in his letter dt.26.03.2012 addressed to the 1st respondent sought a clarification whether the petitioner may be granted EOL from 11.03.2011 onwards which was earlier sanctioned vide G.O.Rt.No.933, Home (Police-Budget) Department, dt.29.07.2002. It is submitted by the petitioner that though he has joined on 21.02.2012 itself, the 3rd respondent has taken the petitioner on duty from desertion only on 30.11.2012 without prejudice to the departmental proceedings against him and pending departmental enquiry, vide orders in D.O.No.684/2012 in C.C.No.738/A4/2011 dt.24.12.2012. According to the petitioner, he was neither a deserter nor had absented wantonly from duties and since he was granted or sanctioned EOL, vide G.O.Rt.No.933 dt.29.07.2002, he had proceeded on EOL basing on G.O.Rt.No.933, Home (Police- Budget) Department, dt.29.07.2002. It is submitted that while the petitioner was posted to Training Section, Hyderabad and was working as such, he was served with a charge memo No.02/PR/2013 dt.05.02.2013 alleging that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duties from 11.03.2011 to 30.11.2012 which led to declaration of W.P.No.13069 of 2021 6 the petitioner as a deserter from 11.03.2011. The petitioner claims to have submitted a detailed explanation to the charge memo on 07.03.2012 to the 3rd respondent that his absence for 21 days is due to pursuing job abroad in terms of G.O.Ms.No.933 dt.29.07.2002 and that he got relieved officially but not absented from duties intentionally as alleged in the memorandum of charge. It was submitted that in G.O.Ms.No.933 dt.29.07.2002, there is no mention about the prescribed time to avail employment abroad. He also submitted that the 1st respondent, in its Memo No.8572/Ser.II/ A3/2012 dt.06.03.2013, has clarified the request of the 2nd respondent and advised him to verify that the previous spell of leave sanctioned vide G.O.Ms.No.933 dt.29.07.2002 was not utilized by the petitioner for going abroad and only after confirmation, to sanction the leave, if he was eligible, which clearly indicates that the petitioner was permitted to avail the sanctioned leave to proceed for employment abroad. Therefore, the petitioner urged the 3rd respondent to drop the charge leveled him duly regularizing his duty period vide his letter dt.04.07.2013. It is also submitted that one person by name K.Bala Bheem, Typist working in the office of the Joint Commissioner (CT), Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad, was also granted employment leave for 4 years and 11 months vide G.O.Rt.No.515 W.P.No.13069 of 2021 7 dt.07.03.2001 and he also availed the same later and his services were regularized. However, the 3rd respondent in his final orders dt.28.08.2013 awarded the punishment of Censure and treated the period of desertion, i.e., from 11.03.2011 to 30.11.2012 as 'not on duty'. Observing that the 3rd respondent has not taken into consideration the letters of the 1st respondent dt.06.03.2013 and 04.07.2013, the petitioner has filed an appeal dt.08.11.2013 addressed to the Additional Director General of Police (Technical Service), Office of the DGP, Hyderabad, to treat the period of compulsory wait from 21.02.2012 to 30.11.2012 as 'on duty' and to drop the Censure order as the period of absence is permitted to be treated as authorized abroad leave by the 1st respondent.
4. However, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dt.25.12.2015 calling for the explanation of the petitioner as to why the punishment of Censure awarded to him by the 3rd respondent should not be enhanced to that of RTSP by two stages for a period of two years with effect. The petitioner claims to have submitted his explanation in detail to the 2nd respondent on 29.01.2016 with a request to set aside the punishment awarded to him and also that the 2nd respondent has to act upon the appeal of the petitioner either confirming the punishment awarded or rejecting the appeal submitted by the petitioner, but there is W.P.No.13069 of 2021 8 no such rule to enhance minor punishment to major punishment. It is submitted that it is thereafter that the 2nd respondent has passed the final orders in Rc.No.822/13/2015 dt.22.04.2016 enhancing the punishment of Censure to that of postponement of increment for a period of two years without effect on future increments and pension and treating the desertion period from 11.03.2011 to 29.11.2012 as 'not on duty'.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the 2nd respondent in his order dt.22.04.2016 has observed that the petitioner has availed study leave from 22.02.2006 to 21.01.2011 and as per rule position, the petitioner had to put in 36 months of service after completing his study leave as per Note (2) under F.R.18 and therefore, the petitioner has to serve the Department till 20.01.2014, but the petitioner has proceeded for employment abroad without completing the said period. The petitioner submits that after availing the prior sanctioned EOL in piecemeal for a period of 4 years and 11 months from 22.02.2006 to 21.01.2011 in different spells on private affairs as per Rule 16(i) & (ii) of A.P. Leave Rules, 1933, the petitioner has put in 48 months service during and after the study leave and hence the observation of the 2nd respondent is not correct. He submitted that aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner has W.P.No.13069 of 2021 9 submitted a revision petition, but the same was also dismissed and challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner was deprived of increments for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 and subsequently, in the year 2015 both the increments which were withheld were released and the punishment was imposed on 22.04.2016 and again the increments were postponed for a period of two years from 2016 onwards. In this regard, it is stated that the increments were withheld twice, i.e., for 4 years instead of 2 years and therefore, it is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also amounts to double jeopardy. It is further submitted that the petitioner was also deprived of promotion due to the pendency of the appeal and the delay in disposal of the appeal and many of his batch mates have been promoted and his seniority was pushed down from serial No.5 to serial No.26. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed objections to the provisional seniority list, but till the date of filing of the Writ Petition, no orders are passed and he is therefore challenging the order of punishment of Censure and also the order of enhancement of punishment and the order of revisional authority in dismissing the revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in W.P.No.13069 of 2021 10 G.O.Rt.No.933 dt.29.07.2002, while granting leave for a period of 4 years and 11 months to take up employment abroad, there is no reference to the period during which this leave can be availed and therefore, the petitioner has availed the same in the year 2011 for proceeding for employment in Ethiopia. It is further stated that the Director General of Police has also recommended the case of the petitioner for sanction of EOL. It is further submitted that when the petitioner has been declared as a deserter and was directed to report for duty and enquiry, the petitioner has immediately returned to India and has joined his service on 21.02.2012, but till 30.11.2012 he was not given any posting and therefore, the period from 21.02.2012 to 30.11.2012 has to be treated as 'on duty' or waiting period and cannot be treated as 'not on duty'. It is further submitted that in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority can only either reject the appeal or allow the appeal, but cannot take action of enhancement of the punishment. Therefore, the enhancement of punishment is bad in law. He also referred to the case of Mr. K.Bala Bheem, Typist, where his services were regularized subsequently when he availed the leave later to the period sanctioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed for allowing the Writ Petition with all consequential benefits. W.P.No.13069 of 2021 11
7. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that in the counter affidavit, the allegations of the petitioner are denied and it is stated that the petitioner was sanctioned 4 years and 11 months of EOL for taking up employment abroad and the representation of the petitioner dt.03.03.2011 for sanction of 4 years and 11 months EOL to take up employment abroad in accordance with the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.933 dt.29.07.2002 was forwarded to the DGP, A.P., Hyderabad vide office letter dt.16.03.2011 for clarification as to whether he can be sanctioned the EOL as requested by him as more than 8 years have lapsed from the date of issue of the said G.O. It is submitted that the petitioner has applied for 1½ day CL on 09.03.2011 and instead of reporting for duty on 11.03.2011, he left the country without even waiting for sanction of leave. It is submitted that on completion of 21 days of unauthorized absence, he was declared as deserter with effect from 11.03.2011 and he remained absent from duty till 30.11.2012. It is denied that the petitioner has reported for duty on 21.02.2012. It is stated that the petitioner has reported for duty only on 30.11.2012 and he was taken into duty vide orders dt.24.12.2012 and in view thereof, the punishment of Censure and treating the period of absence as 'not on W.P.No.13069 of 2021 12 duty' was passed. It is submitted that on the appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority has come to the conclusion that after availing 4 years and 11 months of EOL for study purpose, i.e., from 21.02.2006 to 21.01.2011, the petitioner has taken advantage of non- mentioning of the leave period in G.O.Rt.No.933 dt.29.07.2002 and has left the country after submitting the visa papers and without waiting for the formal orders of sanction of leave. It is submitted that taking the same into consideration, the appellate authority has proposed to enhance the penalty of Censure to RTSP by two stages for a period of two years with effect and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, has imposed the punishment of postponement of increments for two years without affect on future increments and pension and treating the desertion period from 11.03.2011 to 29.11.2012 as 'not on duty'. It is also denied that the petitioner has served for 48 months after availing the leave for study purpose in piecemeal from 22.02.2006 to 21.01.2011. Therefore, according to the respondents, the penalty of PPI for two years without affect on future increments and pension is sustainable and needs no interference. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner was granted extraordinary leave W.P.No.13069 of 2021 13 (EOL) of 4 years and 11 months in the year 2002, but the petitioner did not avail the same till 2011. In the meantime, the petitioner has availed the study leave of 4 years and 11 months and as per rules, he has to put in a minimum of 36 months of service after availing such study leave. Further, the petitioner has proceeded on EOL without waiting for the orders of sanctioning of leave, only on the ground that he was sanctioned such leave in the year 2002. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has returned to duty and submitted joining report on 21.02.2012, the same is denied by the respondents and it is submitted that the petitioner reported for duty only on 30.11.2012. Though the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the joining report dt.21.02.2012 which is filed at page 26 of the Writ Petition, this Court finds that there is no endorsement on the same and therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, except for a reference to the joining report dt.21.02.2012 in the communication of the petitioner, there is no reference to the said date in any of the correspondence of the respondents. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of punishment of Censure and also treating the period of absence as 'not on duty'. The appellate authority has enhanced the punishment to postponement of two W.P.No.13069 of 2021 14 increments without effect on future increments and pension. Rule 37 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 permits the appellate authority to confirm, enhance or reduce or set aside the penalty. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the 2nd respondent has authority to enhance the punishment and has given reasons for doing so. This Court is also satisfied that the petitioner has shown scant respect for the rules and has not waited for the minimum period of service to be put in after returning from study leave and has also not waited for sanction of leave before proceeding for employment abroad.
9. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent. The appeal is therefore devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to give effect to the punishment of postponement of increments for two years only from the date of the order of the appellate authority and grant consequential benefits which were deprived to the petitioner, if any, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
W.P.No.13069 of 202115
10. With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 22.01.2025 Svv