2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15574
APHC010316302015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 20909/2015 Between:
K.d. Madhushekar, Chittoor Dist ...PETITIONER AND Ministry Of Home Affairs New Delhi 2 Ot and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. GANESH BHUJANGA RAO VADDURI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
2. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)
3. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring that the order of the 1st respondent bearing No.R.XIII.20/2015, dt.05.06.2015 confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent bearing No.R.XIII.13/14Adm-7, dt.02.2014 confirming the order of termination passed by the 3rd respondent bearing No.D.II.1/2013-ESTT-I-217, dt.16.09.2013 as illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and against the CRPF Rules, 1955 and thus set aside the same consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as CRPF CT with all consequential benefits thereon and pass...”.
2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a CRPF, CPG in March, 2010. Subsequently, the petitioner was directed to work in Kerala, Tamilnadu and was sent to greyhounds training in Hyderabad during November, 2011. As the petitioner intended to take care of her wife who was pregnant, he requested his officers for grant of leave, but of no avail. As such, the petitioner has left to his native place on 01.01.2012 to take care of his wife. Subsequently, the petitioner had to undergo treatment in SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupathi as he was suffering from ill-health and was advised bed rest for six months. As such, the petitioner has requested his officers to grant leave by duly attaching his medical certificates to his officers on 07.07.2012, 10.01,2013 and 09.07.2013, but there was no response. When the petitioner had reported back to duty on 22.12.2013, the 3rd respondent has not allowed the petitioner and in turn served the notice of termination of service dated 16.09.2013 through which the petitioner’s services were terminated, without any reasons. As per provisions in Rule 31 of CRPF Rules, 1955, after conducting inquiry, the petitioner was declared as “deserter” from the force with effect from 01.01.2012 vide order dated 08.09.2013 of the Commandant. Challenging the notice dated
16.09.2013, which was further confirmed by the 2nd respondent in the appeal vide order dated 19.02.2014.
3. Challenging the order dated 19.02.2014, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the 1st respondent, but the same was rejected without assigning any reasons. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner has deserted from the camp; as such the Commanding Officer has lodged a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate-First Class-Cum-Commandant, CRPF with regard to the absence of the petitioner. Subsequently, an arrest warrant has been issued to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District for the apprehension of the petitioner vide letter dated 10.01.2013. However, the petitioner was neither apprehended nor he reported to duty. As such, the respondent department had to initiate court of inquiry with regard to the desertion of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner remained absent from duty deliberately and did not communicate with the department intimating his position. It is further stated that the petitioner was given ample opportunity by way of a letter addressed by the Officer Commanding-G/217 Battalion to the petitioner. The petitioner was also advised to report for duty by the Civil Police, Tirupati through phone. As per Rule-5(1) of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965, when a temporary government servant is found to be unfit for Government service, the appointing authority has the discretion to issue notice of termination of the services. It is further stated that though the petitioner allege that he has sent medical certificates, the respondents have not received any such document justifying his absence from duty. As such, the petitioner’s services were terminated vide order of the Commandant vide No.D.II.1/2013-ESTT-I-217, dated 16.09.2015 in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 05 of Central Civil Service (Te