APHC010035232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 1950/2025 Between: 1. K.RANJITH, S/O K.PEDDABBA, AGED- 47 YEARS, OCC- EX. PC I68/CT OF CHITTOOR DISTRICT, SRI CITY HI TECH PS (GANGAVARAM PS) JETTIPALLI, MUTHIREVULA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER, FAC ADGP (PERSONNEL) ANDHRA PRADESH POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH POLICE, ANANTAPUR RANGE, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH POLICE, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 5. THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, ANDHRA PRADESH POLICE, PUTTUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the 2 High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings D.O.No.789/2021 dt.03.08.2021 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District, the 4th Respondent herein, thereby removing the Petitioner from Service, as confirmed by the Proceedings ROO.No.No.262/2023 dt.05.09.2023 passed by The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Anantapur Range, Anantapur District, the 3rd Respondent herein. as confirmed by the Proceedings D.Dis.No.25/T2/2024 dt. 19.02.2024 passed by The Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), FAC ADGP (Personnel), Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and direct the Respondent 1 to 4 to reinstate the Petitioner in to service with all consequential benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents 2 to 3 to reinstate the Petitioner in to service by suspending the operation of removal Proceedings D.O.No.789/2021 dt.03.08.2021 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District, the 4th Respondent herein, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.1950 of 2025 ORDER : This writ petition is filed questioning the order of removal issued vide proceedings D.O.No.789/2021 dated 03.08.2021 by the 4th Respondent, as confirmed by 3rd Respondent vide proceedings ROO.No.262/2023 dated 05.09.2023, as confirmed by the 2nd Respondents by proceedings D.Dis.No.25/T2/2024 dated 19.02.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The Petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable with PC 168/CT of Chittoor District. While so, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has been continuously absent for 21 days i.e. from 18.01.2020 and continued to be absent till 25.08.2020 and he was declared a deserter vide D.O.No.866/2020 (A3/262/DES/2020) dated 25.08.2020. After that, as he was mentally disturbed due to the demise of his daughter K.Dalmika, he continued to be absent from duties from 19.01.2020 to 16.06.2021 i.e. 516 days without taking leave of the superior officers. Based on the enquiry report dated 27.01.2020, the Petitioner was removed from service vide impugned 4 proceedings dated 03.08.2021 and the same was confirmed in appeal by the 3rd Respondent on 05.09.2023 and further confirmed in revision by the 2nd Respondent on 19.02.2024. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute the fact that the Petitioner was absent from duties for the period mentioned in the charge memorandum, but submits that the absence was on account of the ill-health of his daughter, which eventually let to her death. It is on account of depression by the death of daughter of the Petitioner, the Petitioner could not attend the Office. Learned counsel further submits that this issue ought to be considered by the Respondents before passing the impugned order. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Petitioner did not produce any medical record with regard to the treatment given to the daughter of the Petitioner and the cause of her death and in the absence of any medical record, the impugned order of removal from service need not be interfered with. 5. Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-III. 5 6. The Article of charge against the Petitioner is that he had exhibited negligence by absenting himself. In the explanation to the charge memorandum, as well as in the grounds of appeal and revision, it is stated by the Petitioner that he was blessed with a baby girl after a long gap of five years from the date of marriage and he had named her as K.Dalmika. It is also stated that the daughter of the Petitioner was unable to stand and walk, and she was dumb due to mental deformity and required constant attention. The state of affairs of the daughter yielded much more affection and love towards her, and apart from that, he had given special attention to her medical treatment with the hope that she would survive for a longer period. However, to the misfortune and despite best efforts, the daughter of the Petitioner expired on 12.09.2019, and the Petitioner went into depression and could not recover himself to attend to his duties. 7. This approach of the Petitioner is substantiated by the fact that in the enquiry, the Petitioner, on his first appearance, had informed the Enquiry Officer that he does not have a desire to have oral enquiry and he may be permitted to have a personal hearing. On the request of the Petitioner, the oral enquiry was dispensed with 6 and the Petitioner was directed to submit statement of defence. The relevant part of the enquiry report is extracted below: “In the charge memo, three witnesses are on behalf of the prosecution. However, on 12-06-2021, on his first appearance, the charged officer has submitted a special report submitting about his unauthorized absence from 18-01-2020 onwards and requested that he does not desire to have oral enquiry and he may be permitted to have personal heating. So on 12-06-2021, a proceedings has been issued by the undersigned, accepting the request of the charged officer to have personal hearing, by dispensing with the process of holding oral enquiry and the charged officer was instructed to submit his final written statement of defence in fulfillment of his request for having personal haring, within one week from that day.” 8. One aspect that needs to be noticed is that the Petitioner had adopted a fair approach even at the stage of enquiry and did not indulge in procrastination of the enquiry. As extracted above, on the first day of oral enquiry itself, the Petitioner had accepted the charge and had fairly stated the cause of his unauthorized absence. The fact that the Petitioner’s daughter had congenital issues with regard to mental as well as physical health and death of the daughter are verifiable factors. 7 9. In the opinion of this Court, considering the situation of the Petitioner, the punishment of removal from service appears to be an extreme punishment in the circumstances of his case. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others1 considered the fair approach of the delinquent as a factor for setting aside the order of punishment of removal from service on account of unauthorized absence. The paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 thereof are extracted below: 19". The doctrine of proportionality is, thus, well-recognised concept of judicial review in our jurisprudence. What is otherwise within the discretionary domain and sole power of the decision-maker to quantify punishment once the charge of misconduct stands proved, such discretionary power is exposed to judicial intervention if exercised in a manner which is out of proportion to the fault. Award of punishment which is grossly in b excess to the allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference under limited scope of judicial review. 20. One of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be: would any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and C degree of 1 (2009) 15 SCC 620 8 misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment. 21. In a case like the present one where the misconduct of the delinquent was unauthorised absence from duty for six months but upon being charged of such misconduct, he fairly admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he did not have any intention nor desired to disobey the order of higher authority or violate any of the Company's rules and regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his control and, as a matter of fact, he sent his resignation which was not accepted, the order of removal cannot be held to be justified, since in our judgment, no reasonable employer would have imposed extreme punishment of removal in like circumstances. The punishment is not only unduly harsh but grossly in e excess to the allegations. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The impugned order of removal from service dated 03.08.2021, passed by the 4th Respondent as confirmed by 3rd Respondent vide proceedings ROO.No.262/2023 dated 05.09.2023, as confirmed by the 2nd Respondents by proceedings D.Dis.No.25/T2/2024 dated 19.02.2024 is set aside. (ii) The Respondents are directed to take a lenient view and impose any other punishment other than the capital punishment of removal/dismissal/compulsory retirement from service. 9 (iii) From the date of unauthorized absence to till date, the Petitioner is not entitled to any salary. (iv) No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 15.10.2025 KLP