IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
M. Ravinder Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments and Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 24047 of 2009
Decided On : 05-06-2023
A.P.C.H.R.I. & Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules/2000 - Removal from service - Absconding from duties - Reinstate into service - Issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring proceedings 2ndrespondent bearing punishment of removal was awarded against petitioner - Respondent to reinstate applicant into service as Junior Assistant under control of respondent temple with all consequential benefits and direct 2nd respondent to reinstate applicant into service as Junior Assistant under control of 2nd respondent temple with all consequential benefits - Held, Court opines that order impugned punishment of removal from services awarded to Petitioner who is working Respondent Temple admittedly as borne on record is an order passed without notice to Petitioner without holding any enquiry regarding unauthorized absence alleged against Petitioner - Court opines whether Petitioner had been absconding his duties willfully had not been established against Petitioner by 2nd Respondent Authority by conducting an enquiry in accordance to law in conformity with principles of natural justice - Writ petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 2ndrespondent bearing Rc.No. SSD/Estt./2006, dated 27.01.2007 in which a punishment of removal was awarded against the petitioner and set aside the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the applicant into service as Junior Assistant under the control of the 2nd respondent temple with all consequential benefits.
3. The case of the Petitioner in brief, is as follows:
(b) The petitioner proceeded for leave on health condition from 19/06/2006 to 14/07/2006 and proceeded on Medical Leave from 20/07/2006 to 04/07/2007 since petitioner was suffering from Hypertension and Left sided Hemiplegia (Paralysis).
(c) After petitioner’s recovery, he submitted a joining report on 05/07/2007 but there is no response from the 2nd Respondent. Later on, he submitted another joining report on 08/07/2007 duly enclosing the medical certificates and also fitness certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Govt. Hospital, Jangaon, Warangal District. Even though, the petitioner has submitted his joining report, the 2nd Respondent has not permitted the petitioner to join duty. The petitioner has also submitted repeated representation not only to the 2nd Respondent but also to the 1st Respondent requesting them to permit the petitioner to join duty.
(d) Instead of allowing the petitioner to join service, the 2nd Respondent on 28.07.2006 issued a show cause notice for removal from service. The said notice was issued without holding any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the respondent.
(e) Consequently, on 07.08.2006, the petitioner has submitted an explanation denying all the allegations. However, no action has been taken by the respondents and no permission was granted to the petitioner to join the duty in spite of repeated representation and there is no response from the respondents till date.
(f) delay in not permitting the petitioner to join duty is the fault of the 2nd Respondent and as such the period from the date of reporting to till permitting the petitioner to join duty is to be treated as compulsory wait and hence the petitioner is entitled to full salary and allowances etc. The period of Medical Leave is also not regulated by the 2nd Respondent and the petitioner was not paid any salary from the date of joining i.e., 29/04/2006.
4. The Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, in brief, is as follows:
(b) The petitioner was again placed under suspension on 10.6.2005 on the ground of absconding from duties from 28.05.2005 to 24.07.2005 and as many as 5 charges were framed against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 01.02.2006. The 1st Respondent vide R.C.No. A3/1313/2005 dated 29/03/2006, directed the 2nd Respondent to treat the period of suspension as “no work no pay” (EOL) as the petitioner had escaped from punishment on technicalities only
The punishment imposed should meet the standards of fairness and be in strict compliance with principles of natural justice.
Disciplinary action must consider proportionality of punishment in light of circumstances, including health issues, and proper procedure must be followed to ensure fair treatment.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fair enquiry and opportunity for the accused to present their case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.