G.A. Sumithra vs Government Of Telangana

1 Challenge in this writ petition is to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 25.07.2019 whereby the petitioner was awarded penalty of removal from service and consequential order of the first respondent dated 13.11.2020 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

2 Petitioner submits that she was appointed on compassionate grounds as typist consequent upon the death of her father and her services were regularized and her probation was also successfully declared. While so, she applied for leave for two days on 9th and 10th February, 2017 as she was not doing well because of death of her husband in an accident. However, she did not join duty thereafter. On the allegation that she was unauthorizedly absent, the second respondent issued Article of Charge dated 27.08.2018, in violation of Rule (3) of Telangana Service (Conduct Rules), 1964. The charge was not in accordance with Rule 20 of TS (CS) CCA Rules, 1991. Petitioner further submits that instead of conducting inquiry in accordance Rule 20 of the CCA rules, the inquiry officer supplied her questionnaire containing three questions viz., first one relating to medical certificates pertaining to the disease, the second relating to the state of health of the petitioner; and the third one relating to leave. Since my answers are not palatable, the inquiry officer dictated what kind of answers she should give and accordingly dictated and obtained her signature to indict her abhorrently. As the presenting officer did not produce the relevant record, based on the answers to the question, the inquiry officer submitted report to the second respondent as if she admitted the sole charge of unauthorized absence based on which the impugned order was passed. Petitioner further submits that due to Gyenic problem she applied for leave of different spells from 09.02.2017 onwards and finally fitness certificate was issued on 09.11.2018. Thereafter, she was permitted to join duty on the forenoon of 09.11.2018. The petitioner made a representation to the fourth respondent on 10.12.2018 requesting to consider the absence period as EOL. However, without considering the same, the second respondent passed the impugned order of removal from service stating that the absence was more than one year and based on that the fourth respondent relieved her from service on 25.07.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent which went against to her. Hence the present writ petition.

3 The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that though the petitioner applied for leave on 9th and 10th February, 2017, but she did not reported to duty nor did she extend the same. The Memos issued by the fourth respondent on 09.03.2017, 28.03.2017, 10.05.2017 and 04.12.2017 left un-responded which clearly established her gross dereliction of duties and attracts the provisions of the Rule (3) of TS Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The second respondent being the competent authority initiated departmental proceedings as per the procedure laid down in TS Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1991. Though it is the contention of the petitioner that she sent leave letters to the fourth respondent through her relatives, but the fourth respondent has not received any such leave letters in the period of one year and eight months. It is further submitted that the respondents have followed the procedure in conducting the inquiry scrupulously. The petitioner was permitted to join duty on 09.11.2018 as per Rule 18 of the Fundamental Rules without prejudice to the action contemplated and pending against her. It is further submitted that any period of absence without prior permission from the competent authority shall be treated as willful absence from duty. It is further submitted the medical certificates were obtained and produced only after framing of the articles of charge. Since the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent to duty for more than one year, punishment of removal from service was awarded. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4 Heard Sri D.Goverdhanachary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services – I and perused the record.

5 Rule (3) of Telangana Service (Conduct Rules), 1964 reads as under:

(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this rule and rule 21, the disciplinary authority or the cadre controlling authority who is not designated as disciplinary authority and who is subordinate to the appointing authority can drawn up or cause to be drawn up.

(i) The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior into definite and distinct articles of charge,

(ii) A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge, which shall contain.

(a) A statement of all relevant facts including any; admission or confession made by the Government servant.

(b) Copies of documents by which and copies of statements of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.

6 Rule 20 of the CCA Rules prescribe procedure for imposing major penalties. Sub Rules (8) to (18) thereof prescribe detailed procedure as to how the enquiry officer should conduct the enquiry and submit his report.

7 As per the material available before this Court, it seems that the enquiry was not conducted as required by the Rules, 1991. Petitioner claims that she sent leave letter through her relatives. But the fourth respondent denies the same. So in order to contradict or to elicit the truth, the fourth respondent ought to have been examined. Moreover, the fourth respondent claims that he sent memos to the petitioner on various dates. But none of the copies of the said Memos were produced. The inquiry officer simply put a questionnaire to the petitioner asking her to give answers, which is not the correct approach.

8 The petitioner contends that she had good reason for her absence from duty being her ill health, which the respondent authorities or the enquiry officer did not consider. Moreover, it is also her contention that during the relevant period her husband had expired due to which she was under mental shock and agony, which also she claims to be the reason for her absence. In those circumstances, the respondent authorities ought to have considered the case of the writ petitioner and imposed a minor penalty instead of imposing a major penalty of removal from service. The punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the charge of which she was found guilty.

9 As regards the issue as to whether the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the charge levelled against her, this Court finds that the petitioner was guilty of unauthorised absence and the respondent organisation, being an educational institution, has to work with disciplined staff. By being absent from duties unauthorisedly for a period of one and half years continuously, the day to day office work was getting affected and therefore she was guilty of misconduct. However, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service is excessive.

10 Therefore, taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the order of removal from service to reinstatement into service without back wages. However, the period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement shall be treated as continuity of service only for the purposes of retirement benefits, but not otherwise.

With the above observations and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.