AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, in granting E.O.L. for a period of 1904 days instead of three years four months for which the petitioner had applied, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondent No.1 to consider the E.O.L. only for three years four months i.e., from 06.07.2007 to 17.11.2011 and treat the rest of the period i.e., from 18.11.2011 to 21.06.2013 as on duty, by setting aside the proceedings No.A7/4747/2011 dated 30.12.2016.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary vide proceedings No.A7/6473/2001 dated 12.12.2001 of the respondent No.2 – District Collector, Mahabubnagar, and he joined duty on 01.01.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner was allocated to Revenue Department and was posted as Village Revenue Officer of Chattanpally Cluster, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar, on 06.02.2003, and he worked as such upto 05.07.2007. On 03.07.2007, the petitioner submitted an application to the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, seeking leave from 06.07.2007 to 31.07.2007. The Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, has granted leave to the petitioner and instructed him to handover the charge to Sri P.Gopal Rao, V.R.O., Solipur Village. Accordingly, the petitioner handed over the charge to Sri P. Gopal Rao, V.R.O., Solipur, and proceeded on leave. Later, he extended the leave from time to time, on medical grounds, through courier.
It is stated that on 18.11.2011, the petitioner has submitted joining report along with the fitness certificate to the respondent No.2. But, the respondent No.2 has forwarded the joining report to the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, directing him to conduct enquiry and submit a detailed report for taking necessary action. The Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, sent his report vide letter dated 19.12.2011 to the respondent No.2 stating that as per the pay bill register, the petitioner proceeded on long leave from 06.07.2007. However, the respondent No.2, instead of permitting the petitioner to join the duty, issued the Charge Memo dated 20.01.2012 framing two charges viz., (1) That he is not attending the legitimate duties and found unauthorizedly absent for a period of 3 years 4 months and (2) that he acted in negligent, irregular and irresponsible in discharging his legitimate duties.
It is stated that the petitioner submitted an explanation to the said charge memo on 07.02.2012. However, the respondent No.2 issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 21.03.2013. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice on 25.03.2013. Dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 issued the proceedings dated 11.06.2013, imposing the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect and posting the petitioner to Kothapally Cluster Unit of Midjil Mandal. In the said proceedings, the respondent No.2 observed that since only six months of service is left to the petitioner and the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect could not be implemented, and accordingly, directed the Tahsildar, Midjil, to calculate the proportionate amount equal to the rest of the penalty and recover the same from the retirement gratuity of the petitioner and to make necessary entries in the service register of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner reported to duty 21.06.2013 and retired from service on 31.10.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation.
It is further stated that challenging the proceedings dated 11.06.2013, issued by the respondent No.2, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration vide proceedings dated 16.09.2013 remanded the matter to the respondent No.2 for fresh disposal duly following the due procedure prescribed under the Rules. On such remand, the respondent No.2 appointed the respondent No.3 - Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, as an Inquiry Officer, who in turn, conducted fresh enquiry and submitted a report opining that the charges framed against the petitioner are not tenable and they may be dropped and that the period from 06.07.2007 to 18.11.2011 may be treated as medical leave. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings dated 30.12.2016 dropping the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner and treating the entire period of absence of the petitioner i.e., from 06.07.2007 to 20.06.2013 (1904 days) as E.O.L. Hence, the present writ petition.
The respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit denying the petition averments and inter alia stating that initially the petitioner has applied for leave from 06.07.2007 to 31.07.2007 on medical grounds, but the said leave application was not supported by Medical Certificate issued by the competent authority. It is stated that after expiry of the leave, the petitioner neither joined duty nor filed any application for extending the leave beyond 31.07.2007 and he remained absent to the duties unauthorisedly. It is further stated that the petitioner had not produced the relevant documents for his unauthorized absence from duty and he joined duty only on 21.06.2013 and therefore, the period of his absence from 06.07.2007 to 20.06.2013 was treated as E.O.L., vide the impugned proceedings dated 30.12.2016.
Heard Sri B. Balaji, the learned counsel representing Sri Challari Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Government Pleader for Services I and II. Perused the record.
A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner proceeded on leave from 06.07.2007 to 31.07.2007, duly handing over the charge to Sri P. Gopal Rao, the Village Revenue Officer, Solipur Village, as per the instructions of the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar. Later, the petitioner extended the leave from time to time, on medical grounds, by sending applications through courier. On 18.11.2011, the petitioner reported to duty along with joining report and fitness certificate. However, the respondent No.2 forwarded the same to the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, to conduct enquiry and submit a report. Though the Tahsildar, Farooqnagar, has submitted his report stating that the petitioner proceeded on long leave from 06.07.2007, as per the pay bill registers, the respondent No.2 had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the same ended on 31.06.2013 dropping the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
The record further reveals that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer, had submitted his report opining that the charges framed against the petitioner are not tenable and they may be dropped. He further opined that the period from 06.07.2007 to 18.11.2011 may be treated as medical leave. Despite the same, the impugned proceedings were issued treating the period of absence of the petitioner from 06.07.2007 to 20.06.2013 (1904 days) as E.O.L.
Despite specific conclusion of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the period from 06.07.2007 to 18.11.2011 has to be treated as Medical Leave, the respondent No.2 has issued the impugned proceedings treating the entire period of 1904 days from 06.07.2007 to 20.06.2013 as E.O.L, on the ground that as per the S.R. of the individual he is not entitled to any kind of leave. It is the specific case of the petitioner that when he approached the respondent No.2 along with joining report and fitness certificate, the respondent No.2 himself has forwarded the same to the Tahsildar for enquiry and report. Therefore, the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the petitioner joined duty only on 21.06.2013 cannot be believed. Thus, it is evident from the record that the petitioner tried to join the duty on 18.11.2011, but he was not permitted to join duty. Hence, for the lapse on the part of the Collector in not permitting the petitioner to join duty, the petitioner cannot be penalized.
Furthermore, pursuant to the proceedings of the respondent No.2, the petitioner reported to duty on 21.06.2013 and retired on 31.10.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation.
In view of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings are set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the period from 06.07.2007 to 18.11.2011 as “E.O.L.” and the rest of the period from 18.11.2011 to 21.06.2013 as “on duty”.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.