Disciplinary actions must follow due process, and absence due to illness cannot be deemed willful misconduct without proper inquiry.

ORDER :

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue an appropriate order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings vide D.No.475/2017 C.No.21/0EPR/2016, dt.12.06.2017 issued by the 4^th respondent in imposing punishment of removal from service of the petitioner with immediate effect and further confirming the same by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents is illegal and arbitrary and violation of procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991 and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to reinstate the petitioner into service as Civil Police Constable (PC) with immediate effect with all service benefits….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Civil Police Constable (PC) in 2003. Subsequently, the petitioner was posted to the Anti-Narcotics Squad (ANS) in Kakinada after successfully completing police training at PTC, Vizianagaram. Later, the petitioner was transferred to the Uppalaguptam Police Station in East Godavari, within the Amalapuram sub-division, where the petitioner worked for about a year. In 2014, the petitioner was again transferred to the ANS in Kakinada. While working in the ANS, the petitioner suddenly became bedridden on 30.12.2014. The petitioner’s wife then took him to Janagam in Karimnagar District, where he was treated by Dr.Rajam, Medical Officer at the Public Health Centre, from 30.12.2014 to 15.10.2015. Subsequently, the petitioner returned to Kakinada and received treatment from Dr.Vadrevu Ravi and Dr. Palanki Seetaramaiah from 16.10.2015 to 11.07.2016. While so, a Police Constable from Kakinada came to the petitioner’s house and served a deserter order vide D.No.475/2017 C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 12.06.2017, issued by the 5^th respondent, who appears to have been appointed as the Enquiry Officer on 01.11.2016. The order was based on the ground that the petitioner was absent from duty without any leave or permission from 30.12.2014 to 19.01.2015 (forenoon). On 03.08.2016, the 4^th respondent issued an order of suspension from service. Thereafter, on 01.11.2016, the 4^th respondent appointed the 5^th respondent as the Enquiry Officer. The 5^th respondent submitted a report on 03.03.2017 to the 4^th respondent. However, the 4^th respondent, without verifying the Minutes submitted by the 5^th respondent, confirmed the Enquiry Officer's report without examining the substance of the enquiry or providing any reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The 4^th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that while the petitioner was working in the Anti-Naxalites Squad in Kakinada, he was absent from duty starting from 30.12.2014 without any leave or permission from his superior officers. The petitioner did not inform his superiors about his illness, whereabouts, or the treatment he was undergoing at the Urban Health Center in Jangson, formerly in Karimnagar District, now in Jangaon District, Telangana State, from 30.12.2014 to 15.10.2015. Subsequently, from 16.10.2015 to 12.07.2016, the petitioner received treatment from Dr.Vadrevu Ravi and Dr.Palanki Seetaramaiah in Kakinada. It is further stated that the 4^th respondent declared the petitioner a deserter vide D.O.No.51/2015 in L.R.No.46/A5/2015, dated 22.01.2015, and the petitioner acknowledged the same on 25.01.2015. Since the petitioner did not report for duty even after being given a reasonable opportunity through proceedings dated 22.01.2015, which directed him to appear before the 4^th respondent within one month to join duty, and as he appeared before the 4^th respondent only after more than 1½ years, he was placed under suspension vide D.O.No.756/2015 in C.No.5597/A8/2016, dated 03.08.2016. The 4^th respondent also served a Memorandum of Charge on the petitioner vide C.No.21/OEPR/2016, dated 03.08.2016, which the p