ORDER:

Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Bhupal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner is deemed to have resigned from the service without conducting regular enquiry vide orders issued by the 2nd respondent in impugned Rc.No.4684/A2.1/2011-12, dated 09.08.2012 and Rc.No.4684/A2.1/2011-13, dated 14.06.2013 respectively as being erroneous, arbitrary, illegal contrary to Rules, opposed to principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to hold that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits and further direct the respondents to treat the period from 14.07.2011 to 08.08.2012 as compulsory wait for all purposes.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioner was appointed as Post Graduate Teacher (English) and started discharging duties as such w.e.f. 12.07.1996 at A.P. Residential School, Balanagar. Due to suffering from chronic anaemia, irritable bowel syndrome, depression and pulmonary tuberculosis from 29.07.2004, the petitioner was forced to stay away from duties for a considerable period, for which the doctor issued medical certificates.

b) After recovery from ill-health, the petitioner submitted representation on 14.07.2011 to the 2nd respondent explaining the facts and requested for permission to rejoin duly. Instead of permitting the petitioner into duty, the 2nd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 by issuing a charge memo stating that the petitioner was un-authorizedly absent from duties since 29.01.2011 onwards, in Rc.No.4684/A2-a/2011, dated 02.11.2011 and proposing to hold an enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the aforementioned Rules. Instead of appointing enquiry officer to conduct enquiry, the 2nd respondent straight away issued show cause notice for imposing penalty vide Rc.No.4684/A.2.1/2011, dated 14.05.2012 stating why it should not be treated as deemed to have resigned from service in terms of orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.128, Finance (PR.I) Department, dated 01.06.2007. A reminder was also issued on 04.07.2012. The petitioner submitted explanation.

c) Without assigning any reasons, the 2nd respondent has issued termination orders vide Rc.No.4684/A2.1/2011-12, dated 09.08.2012 stating that the petitioner is deemed to have resigned from service w.e.f. 28.01.2004, by placing reliance on the provisions of Rule 18-A of Fundamental Rules and 5-B of Leave Rules, 1933. The 2nd respondent rejected the request of the petitioner for review of the termination order. Non adherence to the procedure prescribed in Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules is not only contrary to the statutory prescription, but opposed to principles of natural justice. The 2nd respondent cannot deny the correctness of the medical certificates produced by the petitioner in the absence of a regular enquiry in terms of Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991.

d) Every unauthorised absence from duty cannot be termed as misconduct. If the absence is due to compelling and unavoidable circumstances, the same cannot be treated as unauthorised one. Passing of order of termination straightaway is not legal. The Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2014(9) SCJ 91 and also a decision reported in 2011(3) ALD 641 of this Court held that absence of workmen from duty due to sickness cannot constitute misconduct. In the present case, the petitioner was forced to stay away from duties, due to prolonged illness and the same cannot be termed as misconduct. The period of one year would be from 29.01.2005 and not 29.01.2004 as mentioned in the impugned pr