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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17048

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
K.Janardhan – Appellant
Versus
The Commandant-III and 2 others – Respondent
WP 10375/2021



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

WRIT PETITION NO.10375 OF 2021

DATED : 21.05.2026

Between:

K.Janardhan

... Petitioner

AND

The Commandant-III, Director General,

TS SPF, Headquarters, Ranigunj,

Secunderabad, Hyderabad and others

... Respondents

O R D E R

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ particularly a

Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned

proceedings Rc.No.TS SPF/A3/22/2017 O.o.No.A-531/2017

dt.11.08.201 of the 1st respondent, the consequential appeal rejection

orders issued vide proceedings Rc.No.TS SPF/A3/PR/22/2017 O.o.A-

618/2017 dt.27.10.2017 of the 2nd respondent and the revision rejection

orders in Memo No.227(P)/SER.III/A1/2020 dt.10.9.2020 of the 3rd

##PAGE2##

W.P.No.10375 of 2021

2

respondent and declare them as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to

set aside the same and to declare the entire procedure adopted by the

respondents for imposition of major penalty of removal from service as

well as rejecting appeal and revision petition of the petitioner as

contrary to judicial pronouncements and to direct the the petitioner to be

reinstated into service with all consequential benefits and to pass such

other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the

petitioner was appointed as a Constable by way of direct recruitment in

the year 2001. His services were regularised and his probation was also

declared satisfactorily. While he was working at TS SPF, TS GENCO,

Srisailam, he went on medical leave due to severe back pain with effect

from 24.08.2016 to 13.09.2016 afternoon on the basis of the advice of

the Civil Assistant Surgeon, NSRS Hospital, Srisailam Dam East. It is

submitted that the petitioner proceeded to his native place at Gadwal on

medical leave and the concerned doctors at Gadwal advised him to take

complete bed rest and therefore, the petitioner sought to extend the leave

up to 01.03.2017. It is submitted that vide proceedings dt.07.03.2017,

the 1st respondent placed the petitioner under suspension and

subsequently he was reinstated into service by revoking his suspension

##PAGE3##

W.P.No.10375 of 2021

3

vide orders dt.18.07.2017 of the 2nd respondent and was directed to

report before the 1st respondent. Consequent on reporting for duty on

20.07.2017, the 2nd respondent issued posting orders dt.22.07.2017. It is

stated that on 20.04.2017, the petitioner was required to appear before

the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer, except receiving the written

statement, did not conduct any enquiry in terms of Rule 20 of CCA

Rules, but he submitted his report holding that the charges levelled

against the petitioner as proved and on the basis of the said report, the

2nd respondent issued final show-cause notice dt.24.07.2017 calling for

the petitioner’s explanation and thereafter, imposed the punishment of

removal from service. It is submitted that on 23.10.2017, the petitioner

filed statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent who passed orders on

27.10.2017 rejecting the appeal by taking note of the earlier

punishments imposed on the petitioner which are unconnected with the

present issue. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred revision

before the 3rd respondent who rejected the same on 10.09.2020 by

observing that it was not feasible for consideration as per the existing

rules. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel or the petitioner submitted that the charge

levelled against the petitioner is for overstay on leave and on receipt of

##PAGE4##

W.P.No.10375 of 2021

4

the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation by

enclosing all relevant medical prescriptions. It is submitted that the

application of the petitioner for extension of leave is also acknowledged

by the concerned authorities. Without considering the same in proper

perspective, the impugned order of removal from service, which is a

major punishment, was passed and the appeal and rev

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