JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Sri G. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

None appeared for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

“this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction or any other appropriate order, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders of the 3 rd respondent-

Divisional

Order

No.119 of 2010

Lr.No.G/XP.227/153/11/ GRP/2009 dated 10.12.2010 imposing a penalty of removal the orders of the 2 nd respondent No.65/2011 dated 03.06.2011 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner as bad in law, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the rules on the subject matter and shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and consequently set aside the same with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for imposing a lower penalty such as compulsory retirement in the interest of justice.”

3. Sri G. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined as constable in Railway Protection Force (for short,

“R.P.F”) on probation on

14.12.1995 at B. Company, Secunderabad Division after undergoing the requisite training at RPF Training Centre, Moulali, in the scale of pay of Rs.825-1200. On completion of 12 years of service he was accorded first up-gradation under Assured Career Progress (ACP) Scheme and was granted the scale of Head Constable in the year 2008. He worked as constable at Guntakal during the period of 2000-2005 and at Dharmavaram (outpost), Guntakal Division between 2005-2009. All over his service carrier he worked with absolute integrity, honesty and devotion to duty without any dereliction of duty. The petitioner was deputed to undergo Refresher Course for four weeks at Training Centre, Moulali on

08.02.2009. While undergoing such training, the petitioner received message about serious illness of his mother-in-law. He applied for casual leave on 14.02.2009 and 15.02.2009, and after reaching there, he received another information that simultaneously his father also fell ill. Consequently, he sent a telegram message to the Principal, Training Center, Moulali for extension of ten days leave from 16.02.2009 to

25.02.2009 and on 16.02.2009 itself he submitted an application seeking extension of ten days leave in response to which the Principal of the Training Center vide letter dated 17.02.2009 informed that the extension was not permitted. The petitioner, being the sole person upon whom his father and mother-in-law depended, in the compelling circumstances requested for voluntary retirement from service/resignation vide telegram dated 25.02.2009 and on 26.02.2009 he submitted a letter to all the respondents confirming the telegram.

4. It is further submitted that the 3 rd respondent vide letter

No.G/XP.510/GRK/Con-551/2009 dated 12.03.2009 directed the petitioner to report back to the duty within three days mentioning that he was un-authorisedly absent from Training Centre w.e.f 16.02.2009, providing further that failing the same, the disciplinary proceedings would be initiated. On receipt of the above letter, which was served again on 20.03.2009, the petitioner requested the authorities to accept his voluntary retirement/resignation, but he was issued another letter

No.G/XP.510/GRK/Con-551/2009 dated

27.05.2009 by the 3 rd respondent with the same allegations as of letter dated 12.03.2009 described as ultimatum-2, to which the petitioner again represented the 3 rd respondent on 31.05.2009. The respondents without considering the petitioner’s representations, issued a charge memo vide Memo

No.G/XP.227/153/11/GRK/2009 dated 05.12.2009 on the following charges:

“Charge:-I: Serious misconduct and gross dereliction of duty in that Constable G. Ramakrishna, No.551 working at RPF