1

*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

+WRIT PETITION No.13421 of 2021

Between:

#G.v.l.narayana Rao ...PETITIONER

AND

$The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 28.03.2025

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

- Yes -

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law

Reporters/Journals

- Yes -

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair

copy of the Judgment?

- Yes -

___________________________________

DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

2

* THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

+WRIT PETITION No.13421 of 2021

% 28.03.2025

# Between:

#G.v.l.narayana Rao ...PETITIONER

AND

$The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Bugulu Sreeteja

! Counsel for Respondents: GP for Services-I

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred: 1. (1995) SCC (L&S) 290 (Civil Apepal No.2982 of 1989 daed 17.3.1993)

APHC010235102021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 13421/2021

Between:

G.v.l.narayana Rao

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.

BUGULU SREETEJA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

GP FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the

following relief:-

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus, declare the impugned Proceedings issued vide Memo No.Fin

01/HODSOADTASMNG/14/2018, Dated 09.11.2020 issued by the 1

communicated vide Endorsement of the 2

SECDTA117625, Dated 21.6.2021, and the Termination Proceedings No.C3/8280/2009,

Dated 26.7.2010 issued by the 3

in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and disproportionate in nature and set aside the

same, consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all

consequential benefits, by duly extending the benefit of similar consideration done in case

3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 13421/2021

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

The Court made the following:

is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the

to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus, declare the impugned Proceedings issued vide Memo No.Fin

01/HODSOADTASMNG/14/2018, Dated 09.11.2020 issued by the 1

st

respondent

communicated vide Endorsement of the 2

nd

respondent No.Fin0213039/15/2020C

SECDTA117625, Dated 21.6.2021, and the Termination Proceedings No.C3/8280/2009,

the 3

rd

respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable and

in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and disproportionate in nature and set aside the

same, consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all

equential benefits, by duly extending the benefit of similar consideration done in case

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[3310]

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENT(S)

is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the

to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus, declare the impugned Proceedings issued vide Memo No.Fin

respondent

respondent No.Fin0213039/15/2020C

SECDTA117625, Dated 21.6.2021, and the Termination Proceedings No.C3/8280/2009,

respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable and

in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and disproportionate in nature and set aside the

same, consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all

equential benefits, by duly extending the benefit of similar consideration done in case

4

of G.O.Rt.No.727, Home Services-II Department, Dated 21.4.2006, and GO.Rt.No.385

Home Department, dated 4.3.2010 and pass…”.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as

Senior Accountant and has been posted to work in Accounts Branch at office

of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, AP and joined on 20.12.2017 in

Accounts wing. The petitioner applied leave for the period from 05.05.2008 to

31.10.2008 in various spells and EOL has been sanctioned the above period

w.e.f. 05.02.2008 to 02.08.2008. As the mother of the petitioner was unwell,

the petitioner went to his native place and stay along with his mother.

Thereupon, his mother died on 01.04.2009 and the petitioner made a

representation to the audit officer and reported for duty on 07.05.2009 with a

request to sanction leave for the period from 02.10.2008 to 06.05.2009. It is

further stated that the 2

nd

respondent vide proceedings, dated 07.06.2010

sought for clarification from this office, Director of Treasuries whether to admit

the individual into the duty or not. Accordingly, the 2

nd

respondent directed the

Accounts officer, Office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, A.P.,

Hyderabad to admit the individual into duty and process the leave period from

03.08.2008. But the same was not done. It is further stated that, a multiple

fractures nearby nose happened to father of the petitioner and the 2

nd

respondent issued Memo, dated 07.06.2010 calling for explanation in which

he directed to take notice in terms of Rule 17 (II) of AP State and Subordinate

Service Rules why services were cannot be terminated and discharge

services forthwith. Thereafter, the 3

rd

respondent issued proceedings, dated

26.07.2010 wherein admitted the fact that in reference No.7 the petitioner

5

given explanation and he was terminated from services in terms of Rule

17a(II) of A.P. State and subordinate service rules. Thereafter, the 1

st

respondent issued Memo, dated 10.01.2011 rejecting the claim of the

petitioner. The father of the petitioner made a representation under RTI Act,

2005 on 16.07.2014 and accordingly, the 2

nd

respondent issued information,

dated 04.09.2014 clearly stating that nearly 6 members who did not complete

the probation period were not attended duties from 01.06.2008 to 01.06.2010

and they were deputed/reinstated and posted to another place, whereas the

petitioner was also similarly situated person, but the same was not extended

to the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation to the Finance Minister

on 24.08.2020, the same was forwarded by the OSD to the Prl. Secretary to

Government, Finance Department i.e., 1

st

respondent herein on 24.08.2020

itself, the same was pending before the authorities and not passed any orders.

In similar circumstances, the Government is considered and issued

G.O.Rt.No.727, dated 21.04.2006, who is also in probation period absented

and he was terminated his probation period by mentioning Rule 17(a) (ii) of

A.P State and Subordinate Service Rules and accordingly he was reinstated

into service by imposing PPI for four years effect on increment and pension

and that period is treated die non. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Counter affidavit was filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3, wherein it is

stated that the petitioner has not joined to duty after expiry of leave and was

absent from his duties w.e.f., 03.08.2008 without any proper intimation to the

Unit Officer. The individual has submitted his joining report on 07.05.2009 with

6

a request to admit him for duty after issuing several notices by the Unit Officer.

After examination of the case, the Accounts Officer has been informed to

admit the individual and process the leave w.e.f., 03.08.2008 to date on

receipt of the leave application from the individual. Subsequently, the

Accounts officer has informed that the individual was absent from duty without

applying any kind of leave from 08.05.2009 thereby the individual has been

absconded to duties w.e.f., 03.08.2008. It is further stated in the counter

affidavit that the petitioner has submitted explanation on 16.06.2010 to the

notice issued by the 2

nd

respondent, dated 07.06.2010 stating that because of

his family conditions he has attended the duty. After careful examination of the

explanation of the petitioner, being not satisfied with the same, the 3

rd

respondent has issued orders terminating and discharging the petitioner from

service with immediate effect Progs.C3/8280/2009, dated 26.07.2010 under

Rule 17a(ii) of APS & SS Rules.

It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Government has

rejected the appeal petition of the petitioner filed against the termination

orders and after a lapse of 10 years, the petitioner made appeal on

30.11.2018 to the Government to reinstate into service, which was also ended

in rejection vide order, dated 29.01.2019. Further, in pursuance to the orders,

dated 01.03.2021 in W.P.No.4867 of 2021, the Government examined the

representation, dated 24.08.2020 and issued orders vide Memo No.FIN01-

HODSOADTA(SMNG)/14/2018, dated 09.11.2020, rejecting the request of the

petitioner for re-appointment into service and the same has been

7

communicated through DTA Endorsement No.FIN02-13039/15/2020-C SEC-

DTA, dated 21.06.2021. Hence, the impugned proceedings vide Memo

No.FIN01-HODSOADTA(SMNG)/14/2018, dated 09.11.2020 and FIN02-

13039/15/2020-C SEC-DTA, dated 21.06.2021 are issued strictly in terms of

the rules and the petitioner is approaching for reinstatement since from

26.07.2010. In view of the above facts, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard Mr. Bugulu Sreeteja, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government for Service-I appearing for the

respondents.

5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though

the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the Memo, dated 07.06.2010,

without considering the same, the 3

rd

respondent has terminated the petitioner

from services in terms of Rule 17 (a) (ii) of A.P State and Subordinate Service

Rules which is illegal and arbitrary. He further draws attention of this Court to

the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2106 of

2012, dated 15.02.2012 in case of Krushnakanth B Parmar Vs. Union of

India, wherein it is observed that unauthorized absence from duty amounts to

failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant

cannot be decided without deciding question whether absence is wilful or

compelling circumstances. The compelling circumstances beyond his control

like illness, accident and hospitalization.

8

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in similar

circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Union of India and

others vs. Girija Sharma

1

, observed that, there is no intention for not

attending the duty but circumstances forced him to do so and finally observed

that to give minor punishment. In the present case, there is no willful

disobedience on part of the petitioner and there is compelling circumstances.

He further submits that, in similar circumstances, the Government has also

considered and issued G.O.Rt No.727 dated 21.4.2006 who is also in

probation period absented due to unwell of his aunty and he was terminated

his probation period, by mention Rule 17(a)(ii) of A.P. State and subordinate

Service Rules, and accordingly he was reinstated into service, by imposing

PPI for four years effect on increment and pension and that period is treated

die non. But, the petitioner was not reinstated into service by treating the out

of duty as not on duty. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests

to pass appropriate orders.

7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

submits that the appeal petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the

respondents vide order, dated 29.01.2019. He further submits that in

pursuance to the orders, dated 01.03.2021 in W.P.No.4867 of 2021, the

Government examined the representation, dated 24.08.2020 and issued

orders vide Memo No.FIN01-HODSOADTA(SMNG)/14/2018, dated

09.11.2020, rejecting the request of the petitioner for re-appointment into

1

(1995) SCC (L&S) 290 (Civil Apepal No.2982 of 1989 daed 17.3.1993)

9

service and the same has been communicated through DTA Endorsement

No.FIN02-13039/15/2020-C SEC-DTA, dated 21.06.2021 to the petitioner.

Hence, the learned Government Pleader submits that the impugned

proceedings are issued strictly in terms of the rules. Hence, the learned

Government Pleader requests to dismiss the present writ petition.

8. Perused the record.

9. On perusal of the record, it is observed that, the petitioner herein

was appointed as Senior Accountant through APPSC Notification and allotted

to the Treasuries and Accounts Department and joined on 20.12.2007 in

Accounts Wing. Later, he applied for leave for the period from 5.5.2008 to

31.10.2008 in various spells and the EOL has been sanctioned period is only

for the period from 5.5.2008 to 2.8.2008.

10. It is the contention of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner

has made a representation under RTI Act on 16.7.2014 and accordingly the

2

nd

respondent issued information dated 4.9.2014 stating that nearly 6

members who did not complete the probation period where not attended

duties from 01.06.2008 to 1.6.2010 and they were deputed/reinstated and

posted to another place, whereas the petitioner herein also similarly situated

person, but the same was not extended to him, which is clear discrimination

on the part of the respondents.

11. Moreover, it is the contention of the respondents that the leave

applied for by the individual i..e., EOL has been sanctioned w.e.f. 5.5.2008 to

10

2.8.2008 on private affairs vide proceedings dated 15.11.2008 as per Rue

23(a)(ii) of A P Leave Rules 1933 as per eligibility. Period of Probation under

Rule 16(c )(i) of the A/P State Subordinate Service Rules 1996, which reads

as under:

Rule 16(c ): Period of Probation : Unless otherwise stated in the special rules or in

this rule, the period of probation shall be as follows:

(i) Every person appointed by direct recruitment to any post shall, from the date

on which he commences his probation be on probation for a period of two

years on duty within a continuous period of three years.

12. As seen from the Memo No.1813/267/A1/Admn.III/2010, dated

10.01.2011 issued by the 2

nd

respondent, wherein it is observed that;

“The DTA, Hyderabad is informed that as per rule 17 (e) of A.P.State & Subordinate

Service Rules, 1996, appeal against the discharge of probationer is only in case of persons

discharged under clause (i) or clause (iii) or sub-rule (f) of rule -16 The individual ie. Sri G.V.L.

Narayana Rao, Senior Accountant, O/o the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, A.P.,

Hyderabad has been terminated the services under Rule 17 (a)(ii) of A P.State & Subordinate

Service Rules, 1996 There is no provision for appeal against a probationer under clause (ii) of

Rule 17 (a) of A. P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Hence, the request of the

individual i.e. reinstatement into service is not considered and is hereby rejected.”

13. Even otherwise, the orders of termination/dismissal and removal

from service are considered as capital punishments in Service Law and such

extreme punishments cannot be based on an isolated incident. Removal from

service is an extreme penalty and before inflicting such a punishment the

DisciplinaryAuthority is required to examine as to whether any lesser

punishment can be inflicted considering the misconduct of an employee. If

there are chances of re-formation and improvement in conduct, one chance

can be given to the employee. It is to be noted that punishment of removal or

dismissal will affect the entire family members of the employee as the family

11

members will also be put in ruinous financial condition. Though not a sole

criteria for deciding the question of punishment, these factors are required to

be kept in mind as the entire life of not only the delinquent but his family

members is likely to be disturbed.

14. On perusing the material on record, this Court observed that, the

petitioner was appointed and reported to duty on 20-12-2007 and availed

leaves from 05-05-2008 to 02-08-2008 during probation period as per Rule 23

(a)(i) of A.P. Leave Rules 1933 as per eligibility. Subsequently, absent from

duty without applying any kind of leave and absconded to duties w.e.f.

03.08.2008. Hence, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the

petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 16-06-2010. After considering

the said explanation, the 3

rd

respondent has issued orders terminating the

petitioner from service with immediate effect vide proceedings dated

26.07.2010. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred an appeal before

the Government and the same was rejected. Thereafter, after lapse of 10

years, the petitioner made another Appeal Petition on 30-11-2018 to the

Government to reinstate into service, which was also rejected by the

Government. It seems that, after rejection of appeal petition, in the year 2010,

nowhere in the affidavit, the petitioner has not explained proper reasons.

Moreover, after lapse of 10 years, the petitioner filed an appeal petition

seeking for reinstatement into service is nothing but abuse of law.

15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the

view that the proceedings issued by the respondents are strictly in terms of

12

the rules and hence found no merit in the instant writ petition and devoid of

merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel,

interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________________

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date : 28 -03-2025

Gvl

13

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION No.13421 of 2021

Date :28.03.2025

14

Gvl