APHC010231622023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 502 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dt.22-08-2022 passed in W.P.No.29848/2011 on the file of the High Court. Between: G RamaKrishna, S/o.G.Dattatreyulu Constable 551/Guntakal Division Railway Protection Force (Under the orders of removal) R/o.3/82, Behind Sivalayam Lane Tapovanam, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District Andhra Pradesh. ...Appellant/Writ Petitioner AND 1. The Union of India, Rep.by the Director General Railway Protection Force Department of Railways, New Delhi 2. The Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway^Secunderabad. 3. The Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Guntakal. ...Respondents % lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the judgment dt.22-08-2022 passed in W.P.No.29848/2011 in respect of finding of the judgment. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRIJ U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following order: 0k lantAPHC010231622023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] m MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 502/2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to present the above passed in Writ Appeal questioning the order dt.22-08-2022 W.P.No.29848/2011 by the learned single Judge Between: 1.G RAMA KRISHNA, S/O.G.DATTATREYULU CONSTABLE 551/GUNTAKAL DIVISION RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE (UNDER THE ORDERS OF REMOVAL) R/0,3/82, BEHIND SIVALAYAM LANE TAPOVANAM, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. ...APPELLANT AND 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI 2.THE DEPUTY CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS SECUNDERABAD. 3.THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, GUNTAKAL. ...RESPONDENT(S): lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 220 days in filing this present writ appeal in W.P. No. 29848 of 2011 Order dated 02-08-2022 and to pass 2 lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operation of the judgment dt.22-08-2022 passed in W.P.No.29848/2011 in respect of finding of the judgment and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.502 of 2023 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.29848 of 2011. 2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition for convenience. 3. The facts leading to the filing of present writ appeal are as herein under;- The petitioner joined as Constable in Railway Protection Force (for short, “R.P.F”). He was deputed to undergo Refresher Course for four weeks at Training Centre, Moulali on 08.02.2009. While undergoing such training, he received a message about serious illness of his mother-in-law. He applied for casual leave on 14.02.2009 and 15.02.2009 and after reaching there, he received another information that simultaneously his father also fell ill. Consequently, he sent a telegram message to the Principal, Training Center, Moulali for extension of ten (10) days leave from 16.02.2009 to 25.02.2009. On 16.02.2009 itself, he submitted an application for extension of ten (10) days leave, in response to which the Principal of the Training Center vide letter dated 17.02.2009 informed that the extension was not permitted. The 4 petitioner, being the sole person upon whom his father and mother-in-law depended, in the compelling circumstances, he requested for voluntary retirement from service/resignation vide telegram dated 25.02.2009 and on 26.02.2009, he submitted a letter to all the respondents confirming the telegram. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 12.03.2009, directed the petitioner to report back to the duty within three (03) days mentioningthat he was un-authorisedly absent from Training Center w.e.f. 16.02.2009. On receipt of the same, on 20.03.2009, the petitioner requested the authorities to accept his voluntary retirement/resignation, but he was issued another letter dated 27.05.2009 by the respondent No.3 with the same allegations, to which the petitioner again represented the respondent No.3 on 31.05.2009. Without considering the representation of the petitioner, the respondents issued a charge memo dated 05.12.2009, framing two (02) charges. On 07.12.2009, the preliminary enquiry was conducted, in which the attended with his old aged father and on the next date he submitted a representation to the respondent No.3 seeking resignation and also made oral request to discharge him from duties on voluntary basis. However, the regular enquiry was conducted on 22.12.2009 and thereafter, various dates for enquiry were fixed which the petitioner could not attend. On some dates, enquiry could not be held due to different reasons. The petitioner was served with the enquiry officer’s report vide letter dated 10.12.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued Order No.119 of 2010, imposing the penalty of 5 removal from service with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.2. The said appeal was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 03.06.2011. Against the order of the original authority and the appellate authority, the petitioner has constrained to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the material available 4. on record, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition quashing the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, with a direction to consider the petitioner as voluntarily retired on expiry of three (03) months from the date of notice dated 26.07.2009 and to pay him all the consequential service benefits permissible under the rules, to a voluntarily retired member of the force, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Appeal is filed. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing 5. Counsel appearing for the respondents. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No.3 imposed the 6. penalty of removal from service with immediate effect vide order dated 10.12.2010. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the respondent No.2 was also rejected vide order dated 03.06.2011. In fact, in the said appeal, the petitioner requested the appellate authority to modify the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority into an order of 6 compulsory retirement, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Against non-consideration of the same, the petitioner has constrained to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge of this Court has rightly quashed the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. But, while issuing directions to the respondents, the learned Judge directed them to consider the petitioner as voluntarily retired. In fact, if the Court intends to modify the punishment imposed by the appellate authority or disciplinary authority, it has to be remanded back to them. As such a decision has to be taken by the competent authority only, as voluntary retirement is not a punishment. 7. In view of the same, in our considered opinion, it is appropriate and reasonable to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent it directs the respondents to consider the petitioner as voluntarilyretired and remand the matter to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration and 8. pass appropriate orders by following due process of law to meet the interest of justice. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed in part, (i) Setting aside the direction of the learned Single Judge to the extent of direction to consider the petitioner as voluntarily retired. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.2, who is the appellate (ii) authority for fresh consideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner. % 7 by following due process of law and pass appropriate orders, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd,-E.KAMESWAJJARAO JOINT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Director General, Railway Protection Force, Union of India, Department of Railways, New Delhi 2. The Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railways Secunderabad. 3. The Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force Guntakal. 4. One CC to Sri. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar Advocate [OPUC 5. One CC to Sri. JUMV Prasad (Central Government Counsel) [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies gsc HIGH COURT DATED: 15/09/2025 ORDER WA NO. 502 OF 2023 ands^ S r? SEP 2025 ^ . Curreni secuon . m _«o/ PARTLY ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS