IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Dated 9^th January, 2026.

Between:

K. Manmadhu … Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home (Ser.II) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana and three others.

… Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in passing final orders imposing major punishment by dismissing the petitioner from service vide proceedings Rc.No.05/major/PR- 1/cyb/2014-16, dated:4-6-2016 and the rejection of the appeal by the 2nd respondent vide proceeding Rc.No.05/major/PR-1/cyb/2014-16, dt:21-11-2016 and further rejection order passed by the 1^st respondent vide proceedings vide Memo.No.2183/ser.II/A1/2017, Dt;28-6-2017 as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and set-a-side the same, and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass…”

2. Heard Smt. G. Uma Rani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was originally appointed as a Police Constable (Civil) vide proceedings dated 04.11.2009, and since then, he has been rendering his services with utmost devotion and diligence. However, respondent No.3 issued a Charge Memo dated 11.11.2014, alleging (21) days of unauthorized absence and misconduct under Rules 3(1-3) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges on 10.06.2015. However, without considering the same, respondent No.3 appointed an enquiry office vide proceedings dated 14.07.2015, and the said enquiry officer conducted an enquiry. However, except respondent No.4 herein, who is the complainant himself, no other witnesses were examined during the enquiry, and consequently, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 30.11.2015, holding the charges leveled against the petitioner as proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 07.12.2015, calling for a final explanation from the petitioner, and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.02.2016, denying the charges and requested to drop further action against him.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner, in his explanation, had specifically stated about his domestic problems, for which, he had sought for permission, but the same was not granted, and therefore, due to the unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner remained absent to his duties. However, without considering the said explanation in proper perspective, respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings dated 04.06.2016, imposing upon the petitioner a major punishment of dismissal from service, which is highly disproportionate to the charge. It is submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the dismissal order before respondent No.2, but the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 21.11.2016, without assigning any valid reasons. Thereafter, the revision preferred by the petitioner was also erroneously rejected by respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated 19.07.2017. It is submitted that the petitioner has not exhibited any grave misconduct, and he was absent to his duties only due to the compelling circumstances prevailing beyond his control. As such, the imposition of a major punishment of dismissal from service is highly disproportionate. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned dismissal order and the orders of rejection in appeal and revision, and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with