Disciplinary actions based on minor infractions require compelling justification and adherence to natural justice principles; absence due to illness is not willful misconduct.

ORDER:

Since the lis in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These Writ Petitions (TR) are filed seeking to declare and set aside the impugned punishment orders dated 17.01.2011 and 30.04.2011 respectively, issued by respondent No.4, and the rejections orders in appeal dated 11.03.2011 and 28/30.06.2011 and in revision dated 30.07.2013, 09.02.2012 and 08.02.2012, passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2, respectively, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice, with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, as per her seniority, with all consequential benefits.

3. Heard S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all these petitions, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) through the 2002- Notification, and after successfully undergoing training, she joined duty on probation in Hyderabad Range vide proceedings dated 30.04.2005, got her probation declared in time, and later, was transferred to Women Police Station, Sangareddy, as Woman Sub-Inspector. While working as such, in addition to her regular duties, the petitioner was deputed to BDL Bhanoor Police Station to look after the urgent duties, vide proceedings dated 10.06.2010, and in obedience of the said orders, the petitioner attended the urgent work at BDL Bhanoor Police Station, despite a heavy workload at her original place of posting. While so, respondent No.4 issued three Charge Memos dated 11.12.2010, 21.01.2011 and 21.12.2011, alleging that the petitioner failed to handover the cell phone of BDL Bhanoor Police Station despite the specific instructions of the Inspector of Police; that she failed to report to duty as per oral instructions; that she was unauthorizedly absent to her duties from 30.12.2010 to 04.01.2011; that she failed to finalize investigation in multiple cases; and that she had deliberately switched- off her cell phone to avoid duties and remained unauthorizedly absent to her duties from 26.12.2010 to 21.01.2011. Upon receipt of the said Charge Memos, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanations on 12.12.2010 and 30.01.2011, categorically denying the charges, stating that she was sanctioned seven days casual leave from 03.12.2010 to 10.12.2010, during which period, she visited her village and was seriously ill. As such, she could not report to duty as per the oral instructions. After recovery, the petitioner joined duty on 10.12.2010 itself, and on the very same day, she had handed over the SIM Card to the Inspector of Police, BDL Bhanoor Police Station. It is submitted that on 26.12.2010, with the permission of the Inspector of Police, the petitioner went to her native place, and thereafter, on 31.12.2010, she fell seriously ill and was unable to move or walk. As such, the petitioner visited the BDL Hospital for treatment, and as per the advice of the Doctors, she went to Hyderabad for better treatment, and after her recovery, she reported to duty on 04.01.2011. Hence, the petitioner requested the authority to exonerate her from the charges. However, ignoring all these explanations by treating them as ‘not convincing’, and in utter violation of the mandatory procedure contemplated under the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, respondent No.4 had arbitrarily passed the impugned orders dated 17.01.2011 and 30.04.2011 respectively, imposing a minor punishment of Censure.

5. It is further submitt