SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 56892

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
Paramatma Upadhyaya – Appellant
Versus
The Commandant – Respondent
WP 1386/2009



THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No. 1386 of 2009

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.1 in passing the removal order dated 30.03.2001 vide Proc.No.V-15014/CISF/SCCL/MAJ/RKP/2K and the consequential orders dated 10.03.2006 passed by respondent No.2 vide Proc.No.V-1501/ANU/Appeal-24/PRM/2005-06/159, orders dated 16.09.2008 passed by the respondent No.3 vide Proc.No.V-14013/Rev/par/SS/2008-2255 rejecting the appeal and revision only on the ground that time barred as illegal and to direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits from the date of removal to till date.

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. Petitioner was selected as a Constable on 15.06.1994 and rendered service for 3 years in the Cochin Shipyard, Cochin and late transferred to CISF Unit, SCCL, Singareni and he was sanctioned 15 days casual leave from 19.04.2000 to 03.05.2000 and while he was on leave he went to his home and he fell sick on 01.05.2000. When he contacted the Doctors he was informed that he was infected with Tuberculosis and was hospitalized in District Government Hospital, Gorakhpur. He was unable to apply for further extension of leave but his wife submitted the leave application on 13.06.2000 and he filed the copy of the same. When he became fit to rejoin the duty he obtained fitness certificate on 04.12.2004 and he approached the Respondent Department on 07.12.2004 and he came to know that he was removed from the service. Respondents ordered a Disciplinary Enquiry and passed a final order by respondent No.1 setting the petitioner as exparte and removing him from service w.e.f. 30.03.2001. Show cause notice was issued to him. He filed an appeal on 01.06.2005 along with an application to condone the delay and to set aside the removal order and the same was dismissed on 13.06.2006 on the ground that the time barred by upholding the final orders of respondent No.1.

4. Petitioner also filed W.P.No.55883 of 2006 and the same was dismissed on 10.10.2006 on the ground of want territorial jurisdiction. He preferred a revision before respondent No.3 on 21.07.2008 and the same was rejected on 16.09.2008. Petitioner also field medical prescriptions issued by the Government Hospital, medical certificate and fitness certificate. The petitioner came to know about the removal order only when he joined the duty. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the removal order.

5. In a counter filed by respondents, it is stated that as per leave Certificate dated 19.04.2000 issued to him and he was supposed to report for duty on 04.05.2000 (FN) after availing the sanctioned leave. Area Commander, RKP area issued 03 call up notices and it was also acknowledged by him. Petitioner was directed to report to the duty otherwise, action will be initiated against the petitioner for his unauthorized over stay on leave. As per the postal acknowledgements received back by the Unit, petitioner had acknowledged Annexure R3 and R4, but the petitioner did not report to the duty. Later charge memo was issued on 14.10.2000 and it was also sent to his permanent address through registered post with acknowledgment and he acknowledged the same on 28.10.2000 and it was received by the Office on 10.11.2000. Later the Deputy Commandant framed articles of charge against the petitioner and the same was sent to the petitioner. As per the postal acknowledgment, it was received by the petitioner on 09.12.2000. Inquiry Officer also issued notice to the petitioner to appear before the Inquiry Officer by fixing the dates for conducting Departmental enquiry on 20.12.2000, 10.01.2001 and 30.01.2001 respectively. Petitioner acknowledged first and second notices only and third notice was returned back undelivered with an endorsement “the addressee is not available at his home inspite of repeated visits”. As he did not appear before the authority, he was removed from service. After 3 ½ years,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top