IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorized absence from duty due to compelling circumstances beyond the employee's control, such as illness or hospitalization of a family member, cannot be considered willful and does not amount to failure of devotion to duty or behavior unbecoming of a government servant.

JUDGMENT

J.SREENIVAS RAO,J. - The present Writ Petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings No.15014/L&R/DKD/Min.03/HAP/2002-1320 dtd. 20/4/2002 withholding the increments for a period of one year with cumulative effect which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in the Appeal vide order dtd. 16/9/2002 and also Revisional Authority vide order dtd. 29/5/2003 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same.

2. Heard Ms.K.Bhargavi, learned counsel representing Smt.K.Udaya Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Sashidhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined the post of Sub-Inspector/Executive through due selection process on 14/9/1997 and he was posted to FACT (CD) Cochin, Kerala State and subsequently transferred to Hyderabad Air Port on 13/7/2001. On 28/8/2001, the petitioner while working in "B" shift received a telegram from his family at Cochin, that his son namely Abhijeet Kumar, aged about 11 months, fell sick and admitted in Hospital at Cochin and the petitioner was asked to come over as the health of the child was serious. Petitioner submitted leave application for 17 days commencing from 28/8/2001 to 15/9/2001. On 29/8/2001, the Company Commander advised the petitioner to attend to "A" shift duty before proceeding on leave. The Company Commandant has also advised the Company Commander to verify the position for grant of leave. According to Commandant, one more candidate by name Srikumar was also on leave as he has to vacate the quarter at his previous unit and therefore advised only to spare one S.I. i.e., either the petitioner or said Srikumar. On the endorsement made by the Company Commandant, petitioner proceeded to Cochin after attending duty at "A" shift on 29/8/2001. She further submitted that after availing the leave, the petitioner reported back for duty on 13/9/2001.

4. While things stood thus, on 7/11/2001, respondent No.3 issued charge memo on the ground that petitioner deserted from unit lines on 29/8/2001 after performing the "A" shift duty, without any permission from the competent authority, and remained absent without leave from 29/8/2001 to 13/9/2001 and the same amounts to gross indiscipline, misconduct and dereliction of duties. Petitioner had submitted explanation to the charge memo, explaining the reasons for his absence. Respondent No.3 not satisfying the explanation submitted by the petitioner, initiated Departmental Enquiry and basing upon the enquiry report, respondent No.3 passed final order on 20/4/2002 imposing a penalty of withholding increment for a period of one year, which will have the effect of postponing future increments of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel further submits that aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioner filed Appeal before respondent No.2, the Appellate Authority also without properly considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, rejected the same vide order dtd. 16/9/2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Revision before respondent No.1. The Revisional Authority, after due verification of the records accepted the contentions of the petitioner that he submitted leave application on 29/8/2001, on the other hand, rejected the Revision.

6. Learned counsel vehemently contended that petitioner while discharging his duty on 28/8/2001, he received telegram from his family members from Cochin that his minor son, fell sick and admitted in Hospital at Cochin. Due to the same, the petitioner submitted leave application to the concerned authorities thereafter went to his native place. Respondent authorities without considering the said facts, imposed highest punishment withholding one increment with cumulative effect and same is contrary to law.

7. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the