Termination of service under Rule 17(a)(ii) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules is justified for unauthorized absence, emphasizing the need for due process and consideration of employee conduct.

ORDER

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the impugned Proceedings issued vide Memo No.Fin 01/HODSOADTASMNG/14/2018, Dated 09.11.2020 issued by the 1^st respondent communicated vide Endorsement of the 2^nd respondent No.Fin0213039/15/2020C SECDTA117625, Dated 21.6.2021, and the Termination Proceedings No.C3/8280/2009, Dated 26.7.2010 issued by the 3^rd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and disproportionate in nature and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits, by duly extending the benefit of similar consideration done in case of G.O.Rt.No.727, Home Services-II Department, Dated 21.4.2006, and GO.Rt.No.385 Home Department, dated 4.3.2010 and pass…”.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as Senior Accountant and has been posted to work in Accounts Branch at office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, AP and joined on 20.12.2017 in Accounts wing. The petitioner applied leave for the period from 05.05.2008 to 31.10.2008 in various spells and EOL has been sanctioned the above period w.e.f. 05.02.2008 to 02.08.2008. As the mother of the petitioner was unwell, the petitioner went to his native place and stay along with his mother. Thereupon, his mother died on 01.04.2009 and the petitioner made a representation to the audit officer and reported for duty on 07.05.2009 with a request to sanction leave for the period from 02.10.2008 to 06.05.2009. It is further stated that the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings, dated 07.06.2010 sought for clarification from this office, Director of Treasuries whether to admit the individual into the duty or not. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent directed the Accounts officer, Office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, A.P., Hyderabad to admit the individual into duty and process the leave period from 03.08.2008. But the same was not done. It is further stated that, a multiple fractures nearby nose happened to father of the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent issued Memo, dated 07.06.2010 calling for explanation in which he directed to take notice in terms of Rule 17 (II) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules why services were cannot be terminated and discharge services forthwith. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent issued proceedings, dated 26.07.2010 wherein admitted the fact that in reference No.7 the petitioner given explanation and he was terminated from services in terms of Rule 17a(II) of A.P. State and subordinate service rules. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent issued Memo, dated 10.01.2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner made a representation under RTI Act, 2005 on 16.07.2014 and accordingly, the 2^nd respondent issued information, dated 04.09.2014 clearly stating that nearly 6 members who did not complete the probation period were not attended duties from 01.06.2008 to 01.06.2010 and they were deputed/reinstated and posted to another place, whereas the petitioner was also similarly situated person, but the same was not extended to the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation to the Finance Minister on 24.08.2020, the same was forwarded by the OSD to the Prl. Secretary to Government, Finance Department i.e., 1^st respondent herein on 24.08.2020 itself, the same was pending before the authorities and not passed any orders. In similar circumstances, the Government is considered and issued G.O.Rt.No.727, dated 21.04.2006, who is also in probation period absented and he was terminated his probation period by mentioning Rule 17(a) (ii) of A.P State and Subordinate Service Rules and accordingly he was reinstated into service by imposing PPI for four years effect on increment and pension and that period is treated die non. Hence,