T.Jayasree vs State Of Telangana

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent in PRBO No:29/2020-(R.C.No:45/Rectt/Genl.2/2020), dt.04.09.2020 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent-Board in R.C.No:45/Rectt/Genl.2/2019, dt.02.07.2020 discharging the petitioner from service, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with attendant benefits.

Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner was selected to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector (Civil) after due process of selection. On 21.10.2019, proceedings were issued to the petitioner to undergo training and accordingly she gave her joining report on 24.10.2019 and completed six months training without any interruption. It is submitted that while undergoing training in the T.S. Police Academy, she underwent treatment in Apollo Hospital, Hyderguda, Hyderabad from 03.03.2020 for fever, cough, cold and generalised weakness and she was discharged on 05.03.2020. Thereafter, during the lock down period, the petitioner suffered from haemorrhoids and severe bleeding and pain and therefore, she was given sick passport on 10.04.2020 for further treatment and she was directed to report back for training along with medical fitness certificate on 15.04.2020. The petitioner left the training centre on 11.04.2020 and did not report back on 15.04.2020 as directed. Therefore, a show-cause notice was issued on 25.04.2020 directing the petitioner to submit her explanation within a period of seven days. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 27.04.2020 stating that due to her medical condition and also due to prevailing Corona coupled with lockdown and due to lack of transport facility, she could not report back for duty. In support of her medical condition, she submitted the certificate of a Civil Assistant Surgeon, Mahabubnagar, who is a Government Doctor. However, the 3rd respondent was not convinced with the reasons given by the petitioner and therefore discharged her from the induction training from the date she remained absent without permission, i.e., from 15.04.2020. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the 2nd respondent and though the 2nd respondent is stated to have passed an order on 04.09.2020 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same has been despatched to the petitioner only in the month of March, 2022. He submits that due to non-disposal of the Appeal, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.11271 of 2020 and there was a direction of the Court by order dt.27.07.2020 to dispose of the Appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. He submits that the 2nd respondent did not comply with the said direction of the Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.U.R.C. Prasad, submits that the competent authority to initiate action against the petitioner as per A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 is the Deputy Inspector General of Police, whereas in the case of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has passed the order without any authority. Further, he submits that the 2nd respondent has also not considered the case of the petitioner in proper perspective and therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside.

Learned Special Government Pleader, Sri M.V. Rama Rao, submitted that the petitioner was selected as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector and as per the Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.315, Home (Police.C) Department, dt.13.10.1999, the Chairman, SLPRB is the Competent Authority to discharge SCTSI from the training for unsatisfactory conduct or unsatisfactory performance. It is submitted that the petitioner did not report for training on 15.04.2020 after completion of the leave period and she reported only on 26.04.2020 after issuance of the show-cause notice on 25.04.2020. Therefore, the petitioner has not shown devotion to duty and in police force, discipline is of paramount importance and indiscipline cannot be tolerated and therefore, the order of discharge has been passed. He thus, supported the impugned orders.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that as far as the authority of the officer passing the order of discharge is concerned, the authority as per rules has passed the order and therefore, the said ground is not sustainable. However, on merits of the issue, it is noticed that the petitioner had been unauthorisedly absent for a period of 10 days and the petitioner had submitted medical report in support of her medical condition. It is also noticed that the period of her unauthorised absence is during the period of National lockdown, i.e., in the month of April, 2020 and therefore, her submission that she did not have transport facility to return to duty also cannot be ruled out. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment of discharge from training for the alleged misbehaviour or unauthorised absence is unwarrantedly excessive. In view of the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for sending her for training with fresh batch of recruitees as a fresh recruitee and she shall not be eligible for any benefit of her past training or service. She shall not be eligible for any back wages or continuity of service.

In view of the same, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.