IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.15621 OF 2021 DATE : 03.02.2026 Between:

M. Srikanth …Petitioner AND Union of India, Represented by the General Manager & 3 others …Respondents

ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents in removing him from service and also in rejecting the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner against the order of removal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Venkateswarulu, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the respondent organization and after rendering of about 13 ½ years of service, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner alleging unauthorized absence of a period of 15 months and after conducting an enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner was removed from service vide order, dated 13.12.2019. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner had preferred an appeal and thereafter, a revision. However, no relief was granted to the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was suffering from illness and therefore, he could not attend the duty and remained absent for nearly 15 years. It is submitted that though the petitioner has submitted an explanation before the authorities, the same was not considered in proper perspective that the petitioner’s case requires reconsideration and he was removed from service. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others contending that the punishment imposed is highly excessive and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. It is therefore prayed that the order of removal be set aside and the case of the

1 AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2131

petitioner be considered for reinstatement into service by treating the period of absence as ‘not spent on duty’.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents opposed the same and relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit. It is submitted that the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings in spite of several opportunities given to him and the explanation given by the petitioner for the unauthorized absence was not found to be correct. It is further submitted that since the respondent Organization is a disciplined force, unauthorized absence cannot be considered as a minor misconduct. Therefore, according to him, the respondents are justified in removing the petitioner from service. Learned Standing Counsel had further submitted that during 13 years of service, the petitioner was charged six times, which shows his lack of devotion to duty and that the same was taken into consideration by the revisional authority while upholding the order of removal.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the parties and material on record, this Court observes that the fact that the petitioner was punished six times during his 13 years of service cannot be a ground for removing the petitioner from service, as those instances did not form part of the charges leveled against the petitioner leading to the current order of punishment. The only charge in the Charge Memo against the petitioner, is unauthorized absence for a period of 15 months. Though the petitioner pleaded illness as a reason, the learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the said contention is not supported by any documents and that the petitioner had taken contrary stands before the authorities. However, this Court finds that the Honourable Supreme Court in Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya’s case (referred supra) has observed as follows:

Thus, the present one is a case wherein we are satisfied that the punishment of