JUDGMENT :

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Heard the Learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus by declaring the orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide memo No.DEE/OP/HBG/ADM/JAO/D.No.417, dated 10.05.2018 and confirmation order passed by 2nd respondent in the appeal vide memo No.SE/OP/HBG/DE(T)/PO/JAO/Admn/F.25/D.No.12/19 dated 19.01.2019 in removing the petitioner from service on the ground of unauthorised absence without considering the earlier orders passed by this Court as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of process of law and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to rules and disproportionate to the gravity of the charges and set aside the orders passed by respondents 3 and 2 dated 10.05.2018 and 19.01.2019 by further directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioner was initially appointed as Watchman in the erstwhile APSEB in the year 1982. Basing on his seniority and eligibility, petitioner was promoted as Junior Lineman and later promoted as Assistant Lineman and the petitioner has rendered service in various capacities.

b) The petitioner applied for leave from 12.08.2001 to 22.08.2021 to visit holy place of Hazrat Ali Baba with his family members. The petitioner fell sick during his journey. Therefore, the petitioner’s wife had taken him to his in-laws house at sangareddy, where the petitioner took treatment for Koun’s Abdomen.

c) After recovering from ill-health, the petitioner made a representation on 18.08.2003 expressing his willingness to join duty by enclosing medical certificates. But the petitioner was not permitted to join duty for nearly three months.

d) The respondents instead of issuing reposting orders, issued a charge sheet dated 19.11.2003. On receipt of the said charge sheet, the petitioner submitted reply.

e) The enquiry officer submitted report on 12.04.2004, basing on which show cause notice dated 15.05.2004 was issued. The petitioner submitted explanation to that effect. The 3rd respondent without considering the petitioner’s requests issued orders on 20.08.2004 imposing penalty as deemed to have been resigned from service and seized to be in board employment under Regulation 28(3) of the then APSEB Service Regulation-I as adopted by TRANSCO/CPDCL. Thereafter, consequential orders were passed on 25.09.2004 communicating the imposition of penalty. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner raised Industrial vide ID No.117 of 2009 before the Labour Court III, Hyderabad. But the Labour Court without considering the petitioner’s contentions dismissed ID by award dated 03.02.2010.

f) The petitioner filed W.P.No.4049 of 2011 before the High Court and the same was allowed in part on 07.03.2017 holding that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits for the period of absence i.e. 23.08.2017 to 13.08.2003 and the said period of absence is directed to be treated as dies non and further directed the forfeiture of back wages for the entire period of out of service.

g) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred W.A.No.1056 of 2017 before the Division Bench and the Division Bench set aside the order dated 07.03.2017 passed in W.P.No.4049 of 2011 directing the respondents to reinstate petitioner into service with certain conditions and further permitted the department to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings, de hors regulation 28(3) of the Regulations and complete the same within three months.

h) The Enquiry Officer was appointed and filed report. The 3rd respondent without considering the explanation of the petitioner issued final orders on 10.05.2018 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal and the same was rejected on 19.01.2019. Hence, this writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD :

4. The last 3 paras of