Telangana High Court
K.Edukondalu vs The Union Of India on 8 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.21695 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is
filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the
action of the respondents in removing the services of the petitioner vide
removal order dated 21-12-1999 passed by the 3rd respondent and
consequential rejection of appeal/representation, vide order dated 19-
01-2023 on the file of 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of
principles of natural justice and also shockingly disproportionate to the
alleged misconduct and consequently set aside and further also direct
the respondents to reinstate the petitioner CT/GD in CRPF in the office
of 3rd respondent with all consequential and incidental benefits attached
to the post and pass..."
2. The case of the petitioner is that, while he was working as a
Constable (GD) in CRPF, he went on leave from 11.10.1999, and as per the
sanctioned leave terms, he had to report to duty on 21.11.1999. But due
to the critical health condition of his wife, the petitioner could report to
duty only on 06.12.1999 i.e., with a delay of 42 days. In view of the same,
respondent No.3 issued a charge memo treating the petitioner's absence as
unauthorized absence and in response to the said charge memo, the
petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. However, having been
dissatisfied with the same, the respondents terminated the petitioner from
service vide proceedings No.P.VIII-12/99.EC.II dated 21.12.1999. As a
PK,J
result, the petitioner went into depression and became normal after
prolonged treatment. Later, on 22.08.2022, the petitioner filed an appeal
before respondent No.2 requesting to reinstate him in service with all
consequential benefits, duly setting aside the removal order dated
21.12.1999. However, the said appeal was dismissed on 19.01.2023.
Hence the present writ petition.
3. Heard Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General
of India, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contemns that the imposition of a
punishment of removal from service for a mere absence of 42 days is
highly disproportionate. However, without considering the same,
respondent No.2 has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay
rather than dealing the matter on its merits. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner's wife has made a representation in 2016 but
the said aspect was not taken into account by the appellate authority while
dismissing the appeal. The appellate authority has failed to appreciate
that the petitioner could not prefer the appeal due to stress caused by his
removal from service. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to
allow the writ petition duly setting aside the impugned order passed by the
appellate authority.
PK,J
5. Per contra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the
respondents contends that the petitioner has failed to provide adequate
justification for the excessive delay caused in filing the appeal, and
therefore, the appellate authority has rightly dismissed the petitioner's
appeal. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition, and prays this
Court to dismiss the same.
6. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by learned
counsel for the respective parties.
7. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner approached the
appellate authority challenging the order of termination dated 21.12.1999,
by filing an appeal before respondent No.2 on 22.08.2022, nearly 22 years
later. In the said appeal, the petitioner primarily raised the following
grounds:
i. My absence from 26.10.1999 to 6.12.1999 is not willful, but the
circumstances were beyond my control that I have to stay at native place
for attending delivery of my wife which was delayed.
ii. I have informed about my problem after joining my duties.
iii. Once absence period i.e., OSL period is regularized as EOL there is no
question of unauthorized absentizam, since, disciplinary authority itself as
regularize the absentizam period as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
iv. I was treated by the doctors for sickness for all these years and prolonged
judgment and I have become normal.
v. The punishment is disproportionate to the charge.
PK,J
8. Though the petitioner raised the aforementioned grounds,
respondent No.2 has rejected the appeal vide order dated 19.01.2023 on
two grounds: first, that the petitioner approached the appellate authority
with an inordinate delay of nearly twenty two years; and second, that the
petitioner failed to submit any medical records pertaining to his wife's and
his own medical treatment. Admittedly, respondent No.2 has not dealt
with the merits of the petitioner's case and dismissed the same only as
time barred. Even in the instant writ petition, the petitioner has not
provided any cogent reasons for his inordinate delay in filing the appeal.
Thus, this Court also does not find any reason warranting interference
with the impugned order dated 19.01.2023. Hence, it is held that there
are no merits in the present writ petition, and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall
stand closed. No costs.
___________________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date: 08.08.2024.
GSP
