IMPORTANT POINT
The absence from duty must be proven willful for it to amount to misconduct, and the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.

ORDER :

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, wherein, the following prayer is made:

"To issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 2nd Respondent in rejecting my Appeal Dated 13.06.2015 vide Rc.No. 11111/VC.A/2016-1 Dated 11.04.2016 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, in violation of Rules 33 & 34 of the A.P. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and also in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to modify the punishment of stoppage of 2 Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect to that of stoppage of 2 Annual Grade Increments without cumulative effect and further to treat the period from 19.01.1997 to 12.04.1999 as extraordinary leave and also to treat the period from 13.04.1999 to 12.03.2000 as on duty and pass such other order or orders…”

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri P.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II representing the respondents and perused the record.

3. The undisputed facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Medical Officer, Leprosy Control Unit at Adilabad, he absented from duty from 19.01.1997 to 12.04.1999 without prior permission. After he reported to duty on 13.04.1999, he was kept waiting for posting till 12.03.2000. A charge memo was issued to him on 06.09.1999 to which, the petitioner submitted explanation on 05.02.2000. Subsequently, enquiry was conducted vide proceedings dated 16.08.2001, which culminated in awarding punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, apart from considering the period of absenteeism as dies non. Further, the waiting period from 13.04.1999 to 12.03.2000 was treated as extraordinary leave. Though the petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.06.2015 in the form of appeal, the same was rejected by the disciplinary authority vide Rc.No.11111/VC/A/2016-1, dated 11.04.2016.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no mention of the appellate authority in the order, dated 11.04.2016 and no time was granted to the petitioner to file an appeal and as such, the respondents failed to comply Rule 21(2) of the CCA Rules. There is no mention in the punishment proceedings, dated 18.06.2001, that the absence of the petitioner was willful. The respondents failed to serve a copy of Enquiry Report to the petitioner before inflicting punishment on him, which is against the principles of natural justice. The representation, dated 13.06.2015, of the petitioner in the form of appeal was rejected by the appellate authority in a mechanical manner. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. Further, stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect had a cascading effect on the pay and allowances of the petitioner during the remaining period of his service and would also affect the retirement benefits, including pension and ultimately prayed to grant the relief sought in this writ petition.

5. Respondents filed counter, which is nothing but reiteration of the facts of this case. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was afforded opportunity to submit his explanation to the show-cause notice before awarding punishment. The petitioner is a doctor by profession and was posted to work at Leprosy Control Unit at Adilabad. His unauthorized absence caused certain difficulties to the department in particular and the public health at large in the locality where he was posted. Considering the gravity of misconduct, the respondents are justified in imposing punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect apart from considering the period of absenteeism as dies non and the waiting period as extra-ordinary leave. The contentions r