Punishment Of Removal From Service For Unauthorized Absence Of 5 Days Is Very Harsh: Telangana High Court

The Writ Petition had been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of removal from service and consequently to direct the petitioner to discharge his duties along with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages in the interest of justice and fair play.

The petitioner joined the respondent Corporation as a Driver in the year 1990. The petitioner was removed from service in 2007 on the ground of unauthorized absence of five days without any prior sanction of leave from the departmental authorities and for not submitting any sick certificate from RTC Hospital.

The petitioner submitted that the reason for his absence during the period was due to his sickness and he had also submitted sick certificate. There was no misconduct on his part requiring removal from service.

The petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority who rejected it and thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petitioner through which the petitioner was reinstated into service as a fresh driver vide order dated 07.11.2008. But the copy of the order was received by the petitioner only in 2011 and as a consequence the petitioner was not aware of the order of reinstatement for more than 2 years. Though upon receiving the order, the petitioner immediately approached the authorities for joining the duties, he was not allowed as the order was held to be time-barred.

The court observed that it was clear that the order copy was not served on the petitioner as it was returned unserved by the postal authorities. The fact remains that the petitioner was not aware of the order of reinstatement for a long time.

Furthermore, Justice P. Madhavi Devi ruled that the punishment of removal from service for the charges of unauthorized absence was very harsh and took into account the Supreme Court judgments Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2012 and Chhel Singh v. MGB Gramin Bank, 2014.

The respondents were directed to pay 50% of the back wages and retirement benefits to the petitioner. It was noticed that the petitioner had retired from service in 2015 and therefore, the reinstatement of petitioner into service would be futile. The Writ Petition was accordingly partly allowed.

Case Title: N. Parvathalu v. APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 20