Telangana High Court
Immadwar Srinivas, vs The Director General on 12 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION No.4546 of 2021
ORDER:
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a
Writ of Mandamus declaring the order
No.1/ITBP/SHQ(BBSR)/E-2/Disp(CT/GD Immadwar
Srinivas)/2020-187-94, dated 09.08.2020, confirming
the punishment order of removal from service as
illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and
consequently to set aside the same and to direct the
respondents to re-instate the petitioner in ITBP Force
with all consequential benefits and to pass such other
order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the
present writ petition are that the petitioner was
working as a Constable (GD) with the
3rd respondent. The petitioner had proceeded to
his village on sanctioned leave of 30 days from
28.05.2019 to 26.06.2019. According to the
petitioner, his wife was in need of medical
assistance and therefore, he has proceeded on
leave and he was forced to over stay, due to ill-
health of his wife and subsequently due to the ill-
health of his father. The petitioner claims to have
sought extension of 15 days of leave, but the
petitioner was not intimated about non-granting of
leave and the petitioner continued to take care of
his father. It is submitted that the respondents in
the meantime have passed the impugned order and
have removed the petitioner from service. The
appeal filed by the petitioner has also been
rejected. Challenging the same, the present writ
petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the absence of the petitioner from
his duties/non reporting for duty after the lapse of
sanctioned leave period was not wilful or
deliberate, but was due to the reasons mentioned
in the writ affidavit i.e. initially due to the delivery
of his wife and subsequently, due to the ill-health
of his father. He relied upon the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and
Another 1 for the proposition that where there is no
wilful default on the part of the petitioner in
attending to his duties, the punishment of
removal/dismissal from service is highly excessive
and should not be imposed.
4. Learned Standing counsel for the
respondents, however, relied upon the averments
made in the counter affidavit and submittesd that
the petitioner has not shown any intention to join
the service after lapse of 30 days of sanctioned
leave or even after 15 days of leave, for which he
sought extension, though it was rejected. He
submitted that, at the request of the respondents,
(2012) 3 SCC 178
the duty officers of the local police station have
personally visited the local residence of the
petitioner and have informed his wife about the
direction to report for duty, but the petitioner failed
to do so. It is submitted that the respondents have
therefore initiated disciplinary proceedings and the
respondent organisation being a disciplined force,
insubordination or negligence in performance of
duty will not be tolerated and hence, when the
petitioner failed to submit any explanation to the
Show Cause Notice, the order of dismissal from
service was necessarily imposed. It is submitted
that the Appellate Authority however has also
considered the contentions of the petitioner in his
appeal, but has taken a decision to confirm the
order of removal. He therefore sought dismissal of
the writ petition.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and
the material on record, this Court finds that the
only reason for removal from service is
unauthorized absence from duty. Admittedly, the
petitioner has proceeded to his home town on
sanction of 30 days leave and subsequently, has
also sought for extension of leave for 15 days,
which was rejected by the respondents. The
reason given by the petitioner for his absence from
duty, cannot be said to be totally without any
basis. However, it has been pointed out by the
learned Standing counsel that the petitioner has
not submitted any documents or medical reports in
support of his contentions about the ill-health of
his father or his wife and that the petitioner has
not given any reason for not communicating the
same with his officers on duty.
6. However, taking a sympathetic view and
following the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Krushnakant B. Parmar (cited supra), this
Court is of the opinion that the punishment of
removal from service is too harsh for the
allegations of unauthorized absence which is not
wilful or deliberate. In view of the same, this Court
deems it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to
make a fresh representation along with the medical
reports to the 3rd respondent, who shall reconsider
the case of the petitioner and take a decision in
accordance with law. In case the respondents are
inclined to accept the explanation of the petitioner
for his unauthorized absence, he may be
reconsidered for resumption of duty subject to his
physical fitness. Thereafter, the consequential
benefits of the continuation of duty shall be
considered by the respondents. The decision on
the representation of the petitioner shall be taken
by respondent No.3 within a period of three (03)
months from the date of receipt of the
representation of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall also stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date:12.08.2024
Note: Furnish C.C. by tomorrow.
TU
