Dismissed

Abid Ali, CHATTISGARH-495222 v. the Commandant, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Telangana HC20 Apr 2023WP/3898/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging his non-joining of duty after a reinstatement order. The court held that the petitioner failed to report to duty despite notices and thus cannot claim relief. A direction was issued for the authorities to consider the petitioner's grievance regarding unpaid gratuity.

What did the court decide?

Dismissing the writ petition; directing authorities to consider the petitioner's representation regarding non-payment of gratuity and benefits within twelve weeks.

Abid Ali, CHATTISGARH-495222 Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3167 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3898 OF 2007

¶7

Between:

¶8

Abid Ali, Chatlisgarh-495222 S/o. Shri Gaihar Ali Ex-Constable Vide No. 942295586, Hirri Mines/ T ak Nagar (Vill. & Post) Bilaspur District, Chaftisgarh-495 222 ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Commandant, Hyderabad , CISF Unit, NFC, ECIL^(PO) Hyderabad-62 2. The Dy. lnspector Geneal/DAE, CISF DAE Hqrs, ECIL (PO) Hyderabad-62 3. The lnspector General (SWS), CISF, RCFL Complex, Chembur, Mumbai400074

¶11

The Union of lndia rep by its Principal Secretary,, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of lndia, New Delhi.

¶12

R-4 is impleaded as per Court order daled 181061'12 in WPMP.No. 9373111.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing me to^joint into duty as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petition to^join in service with immediate effect and^pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and^proper in the interest of^justice.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KRISHNA MURTHY DEVARAKONDA

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRl. K. ARVIND KUMAR, SC

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

.THE IION'BLE SRI.IUS'[ICE, A. AI}IIISIIEK RT]DDY

¶19

WRIT PETIl'lON No.3898 ot 2007

¶20

ORDT]R:

¶21

Sccking to dcclarc thc action ol'thc rcspondents in^not allorving the petitioner to^join duty as illcgal, arbitrary^and unconstitutional and to direct thc respondcnts to^permitthe petitior.rer to join servicc with immcdiate cff'cct, the^petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition

¶22

l,earned counsel appearing on bchalf of the^petitioner has stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Constableⁱⁿ the respondent unit in the year 1994 and^{thereafter,the} petitioncr was re moved lro rn scrvicc by thc rcspondent No. I - Cornmandant, CISF tJni1, NIrC, UCII-(PO),^{I.lydcrabad-62,} vide order dated 08.08.2003, on thc ground that the petitioner overstaycd his leavc unaulhorizcdly by a pcriod of 85^days. Aggrievcd by thc said order of rcuroval dated 08.08.2003,^the petitioncr has filcd appeal bcforc tlrc rcspondcnt No.2 Deputy lnspcctor GencraI/DAE, CISI;, I)AI') Hqrs, l1CIt.(PO), Hydcrabad, but, the rcspondcnt No.2 has rcjccted the^said

¶23

¶24

AAR, J W P No.3898 of 2OO7 \

¶25

-- " k--r t - !rr:F-.,..{ ,:i,!-

¶26

appeal vide order dated 25.11.2003. Irurlher, as against the said order dated 25. I | .2003, the petitioner has preferred revision befbre the respondcnt No.3 Inspector General (SWS), CISF, RCFL Complex, Chembur, Mumbai, but, rhe respondent No.3 after considering the case of the petitioner, has passed order dated 21 .09.2004 reducing the punishment of removal from service to that of reduction ol pay by 2 stages i.e., from I{s.3,200/- to Rs.3,050/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590 for a pcriod of 3 years with effect from the date of rejoining duty on restatcment into service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that thereafter, the respondent No.3 seems to have passed an order dated 28.01 .2005 cancclling the ordcr of reinstatement into service dated 27.09.2004 without any notice to thc petitioner. That before cancelling the order of reinstatement dated 21 .09.2004, the respondent No.3 ought to have issued at least a show cause notice to the petitioner and has not followed the procedure as contemplatcd for removing the petitioncr from service.^'Ihat once the order of reinstatcrncnt l.ras been passed by the

¶27

AAR, J \t P No.3898 ol2OO7

¶28

¶29

¶30

respondcnt No.3 on 21 .09.2004, it is deemed that the petitioner is in service and the procedure that is contemplated under the Rulcs and Regulations for removal of an employce has to be scrupulously followed. Thc learned counsel has further stated that rvitliout putting the pctitioncr on notice or calling for his explanation, the order dated 28.01.2005 recalling the reinstatcrnent order dated 27.09.2004 has been passed by the respondcnt No.3 and the samc is arr arbitrary exercisc of power.

¶31

Pcr contra, the lcarncd Standing Counsel appearing on behalf ol'thc respondent unit has velremently opposed thc very maintainability of the present Writ Petition and has stated that the petitioner was duly removed frorn scrvice based on the charges levelled against him, vide ordcr dated 08.08.2003 passed by the respondent No.l . In spite of punishment imposcd on the pctitioner, the petitioner has overstayed his leave, wlrich w'as granted to him, by a period of 85 days i.c., frorn 07.11.2002 ro 30.01.2003. l'hat'in thc dcpartmenral enquiry conductcd by the authority conccrled, thc petitioner

w P No 3898 of 2007

was found guilty of the charges lcvelled against him and by duly following the procedure, the respondent No.l has passed the order dated 08.08.2003 imposing the penalty of removal from service. Therealter, aggrieved by the said order dated 08.08.2003, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2, but, the respondent No.2 has rejected the said appeal vide order dated 25.11.2003. Thercafter, the petitioner has preferred revision before the respondent No.3 on 07.04.2004 and the respondent No.3 by taking a sympathetic view, has passed the order dated 21 .09.2004, the conclusive portion of which reads as under:

¶37

"Furthcr, it is proposcd to regularizc thc intervening period r.c., tiom tlrc date of relnoYal front servrcc to the date of rcjoinrng duty on re-instatcnrent in servicc as "Dies-non,'. fhc petitioner is hereby givcn an opponunity of making his represcntation, ifany, against this proposal within l5 days lrom thc dalc of reporting fbr duty, failing which, it will bc presumed that thc pctrtioner has nothing to reprcsent against the said proposal and appropriatc orders will be passcd accordingly without lunher notice."

¶38

That the aforesaid ordcr of rcinstatement daterl 21 .09.2004

¶39

passed by thc respondent No.3 was a conditional order, but,

¶40

AAR. J w ir No 3898 ol2OO7

¶41

¶42

the petitioner has nevcr bothered to join the services. Even though notices havc becn issued to the petitioner and have been duly acknowledged by the pctitioner, the petitioner has failed to join duty alter the order o[ reinstatement dated 21 .09.2004 passed by the respondent No.3.^'l'herefore, left with no other option, thc respondcnt No.3 was constrained to pass the order dated 28.01.2005 recalling the order of rcinstatement dated 21 .09.2004.^'l'he lcarned counsel has stated that the respondenI authorities have followed the due procedure as conternplated under thc Rulcs and Regulations and the petitioner has not lbllowed the order dated 21 .09.2004 by re.joining the service and thercalier also, the petitioncr has not responded to thc notices issucd. Tl.re rcspondent No.3 left with no other option has passed the order dated 28.01.2005 by recalling the order of reinstatemcnt dated 27.09.2004, therefore, pral,cd this Court to dismiss the present Writ Petition

¶43

4 A perusal of the ordcr datcd 27.09.2004 passed by the

¶44

rcspondcnt No.3/revisional aurhority shows that the said order

w.P No 3898 o12007

-,'J

is a conditional order. The respondent No.3 by taking a lenient

¶49

and sympathetic view, had set aside the order of removal dated 08.08.2003 passed by the respondent No.l and reinstated the petitioner into service by directing the petitioner to report at CISF Unit within l5 days of receipr of the said order, failing which, the orders as deemed fit would be passed without further notice. But, as seen from the record, the petitioner has not bothered to rejoin the services, even after the order of reinstatement dated 21 .09.2004 was passed and issuance of notices to thc petitioner on 30. 12.2004 and 05.01.2005 which have been duly acknowledged by the petitioner on 08.01.2005 It is only thercafter, that the order dated 28.01.2005 has been passed by the respondent No.3 by recalling the order of reinstatemenl dated 27.09.2004. Once the order of reinstatement has been passed, the petitioner was obligated to join duty within l5 days from the date of receipt of the said order, but, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not join duty and cven though repeated notices have been servcd on the pctitioner asking him to join the services, he has

¶50

¶51

.rit .8-

¶52

AAR, J W Ir No 3898 of2OO7

t /

failed to do so. Therefore, it cannot be said that the official

¶57

respondents have no1 followed the procedurc as contemplated under the Rules and Regulations or that the order dated 28.01.2005 recalling the reinstatcment order is passed without notice to thc petitioncr. Thc contentiorr of the learned counsel for the petitioncr that the principles ol natural justice were not followed is without any basis. The conduct and the attitude of the petitioner do not deserve any sympathy from this Court and the petitioner is solely respor.rsible for the consequences of his not .joining the services pursuant 10 the order of reinstateme n1 dated 21 .09.2004 passcd by the respondent No.3.

¶58

Hal'ing regard to the above, this Writ^petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶59

At this point of time, the lcarned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the pctitioner has put in service of almost ten ycars and that thc gratuity and other benefits, which wcre due, have not bcen paid to hirn till date.

E;E ii:iP

w.P No.389a ot 2007

I{aving regard to the above made submission, the

¶64

petitioner is directed 1o subrnit a representation to the authority

¶65

concerned ventilating his grievance and on such representation

¶66

being given, the authority concerned shall consider the same

¶67

on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a

¶68

period of twetve ( I 2) weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

¶69

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶70

closed.'l'here shall be no order as to costs.

¶71

¶72

sD/-K. AMFTAJT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶73

SEcnONSFFIcER

¶74

To,

¶75

One CC to SRl. KRISHNA MURTHY DEVARAKONDA Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. K. ARVIND KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies BM GJP

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010412023

ORDER

WP.No.3898 of 2007

$F- STAle.
)',) 21 luN ilra
*
..t
l^1--.sPirTc<br>

¶83

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶84

@c"C"9

¶85

(" ,e3 \

Abid Ali, CHATTISGARH-495222 v. the Commandant, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abid Ali, CHATTISGARH-495222 v. the Commandant, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Venkateshwarlu Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

R.Sanjeeva Rao Vs TheChairman and Managing Director

Bashaboina Kaushik Kumar Vs Sri P.Kiran Kumar

Syed Doulat Hussain, Hyd. Vs Ceo, Apswb, Hyd. and 3 Ors.

Bharat Dynamics Ltd., Vs The Labour Coaurt_I

Bandi Kumaraswamy and 2 others Vs Mateti Rajamouli and another