IMPORTANT POINT
Absence due to compelling circumstances cannot be deemed willful; disciplinary authorities must prove willfulness for misconduct.

ORDER :

Pulla Karthik, J.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief :

“To issue a Writ, Order of Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS to declare the Memo.No.DEE/OP/HZB/ADM/JAO/SA/ D.No.601/19 dated 30.07.2019 issued by the 4th respondent wherein imposed the major punishment of “deemed to have been resigned from service w.e.f.08.03.2016 on the ground of unauthorized absence for duties” without giving reasonable opportunity and its consequential orders in Memo No.SE/OP/KNR/DE(T)/PO/JAO/S1/D.No.2825/22, 03.11.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent rejected the appeal submitted by the petitioner is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Lineman without all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri Laxmalla Sandeep, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

3. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as Watchman in the year 2002 in the respondent Corporation under the Medical Invalidation Scheme. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Junior Lineman in the year 2005. While so, he applied for medical leave for a period of ten days from 08.03.2016 to 10.03.2016. However, due to his serious health condition and also due to unawareness, he could not extend his medical leave and continued on leave till 08.07.2017. After recovering from ill-health, he submitted a representation to the authorities on 11.07.2017 requesting to consider his claim for admitting him into duties as Lineman, duly enclosing relevant medical certificate. Without considering the said representation, the respondents have issued a Memo dated 21.09.2017 to the petitioner to submit his explanation for unauthorized absence, to which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 26.09.2017. However, without considering the said explanation, the respondent authorities have initiated departmental proceedings and issued charge sheet vide Memo dated 07.02.2018, to which the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 14.07.2018 denying the charges. Being dissatisfied with the said explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry into the allegations vide Proc.No.SE/OP/KNR/ DE(T)/PO/JAO/S3(O&M)/D.No.3103/17, dated 30.01.2018. After conducting the detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated 23.02.2018 holding that the charges are proved. Based on the same, the Disciplinary Authority has issued show cause notice dated 19.06.2018, to which, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation dated 14.09.2018. Without looking into the true and correct facts, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the major penalty of ‘Deemed to have been resigned from service w.e.f.08.03.2016 for unauthorized absence from duty for more than one year’ vide Memo dated 30.07.2019 without giving a reasonable opportunity and imposed the punishment contrary to the Rules and settled principal of law. Therefore, imposition of major penalty by the respondent authority is highly arbitrary and disproportionate and amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel has further contended that questioning the punishment order dated 30.07.2019, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the appellate authority through proper channel on 27.06.2020 ventilating his grievance by raising several grounds. Though the petitioner has specifically and categorically stated that his absence was due to compelling circumstances only i.e. he was suffering with serious health issues, but the appellate authority has mechanically passed the impugned order with pre-determined notion. Hence, the absence cannot be considered as unauthorized and only due to unavoidable circumstances, he was forced to go on leave and his absence is not willful