Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22448 (AP)

A. VENKATESWARLU, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. v. THE DGM., THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI & 3 OTH

WP/32803/2011 · 2025-01-02

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010317992011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 32803/2011 Between: A. Venkateswarlu, Prakasham District. ...PETITIONER AND The Dgm The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd New Delhi 3 Oth and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P BHASKAR The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 15.04.2010, which were passed by the 2nd respondent imposing the punishment of removal from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 21.10.2010. Both orders are impugned in the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner initially served in the Indian Army under the Short Service Commission scheme and retired after 17 years of service. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent insurance company as a sub-staff on 03.12.2011. The petitioner did not attend duty HN, J W.P.No.32803_2011 2 without obtaining prior permission. As such, the respondents, vide proceedings dated 18.02.2008, proposed to initiate a departmental enquiry for the unauthorized absence from 27.08.2006 to 31.01.2008. It is also alleged that the petitioner did not make any arrangements to receive letters sent by the 2nd respondent’s office. On these charges, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the petitioner responsible for the charges framed. 3. The impugned proceedings also reflect that the petitioner received the letter addressed by the respondents on 25.03.2009, whereby he was called upon to explain his version of defense for the proposed punishment. It is also stated in the impugned proceedings dated 15.04.2010 that the petitioner did not respond to the said letters. It is also stated in the impugned proceedings that one more opportunity was granted to the petitioner by addressing a letter dated 17.07.2007, advising the petitioner to join duties. In respect of the same, the petitioner did not respond as such, there was no other option for the respondents to pass the impugned proceedings. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority seeking reinstatement into service and to explain the personal tragedy that the petitioner had undergone in his life. The HN, J W.P.No.32803_2011 3 appeal was considered and vide appeal dated 24.06.2010, the appellate authority, through its proceedings dated 21.10.2010, upheld the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority in its order dated 15.04.2010. The appellate authority also recorded that the petitioner’s habitual absence did not warrant any interference with the punishment imposed. 4. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents and there is no representation for the respondents. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner’s age also is not mentioned in the writ petition or in the affidavit. That apart, the scope of judicial review of this Court is very narrow. In the present case, the petitioner is alleged to have remained absent from 27.08.2006 to 31.01.2008. The petitioner was absent for more than 16 months without any authorization or communication from his end of his the employer, the respondents. It is also not explained as to what prevented the petitioner from atleast informing his office about the health problem he was facing, under the circumstances which he was required his personal attendance. In absence of any explanation from the petitioner’s side, the impugned proceedings cannot be classified as irrational or shockingly disproportionate. HN, J W.P.No.32803_2011 4 6. In these circumstances, this Court cannot interfere in the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 02.01.2025 NKA HN, J W.P.No.32803_2011 5 257 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.32803 of 2011 Date: 02.01.2025 NKA