If y y y - V 4-'"' IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: mi (Special Original Jurisdiction) I I'jj <y THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRit TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 27539 OF 2018 Between: Vijjeswarapu Kavi, Vijjeswarapu Kavi, S/o.Gangaraju, aged about 22 years, R/o.3-41, Oduru Village, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari District. W.G.DT ...Petitioner AND 1. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, New Delhi. 2. The Director Generals Office, Bihar Sector, CRPF, Patna-800025, Bihar State. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police/Principal Recruit Training Centre, CRPF, Peringome, Aravanchal Post, Kannur District, Kerala State-670353. 4. The Commandant, R.T.C CRPF, Peringome, Aravanchal Post, Kannur District, Kerala State-670353. T A 5. The Inspector General of Police Southern Sector, CRPF, Road No.10- C, New MLA/MPs Colony, Gayathri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State-500033. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue the writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus aggrieved declaring the impugned order in appeal dated 09-01-2017 of the 2^^ respondent whereby rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the termination order dated 07- 07- 2016 of the 3'"'^ respondent as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and contrary to the letter and spirit of rules CCS (Temporary Services) Rules 1965 and CRPF Rules 1955 and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as cadre CRPF in the 2nd respondent's office pending disposal of the above Writ Petition in this Hon'ble Court and pass any such other order or orders as may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.V. RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: APHC010571052018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) BBS [3396] B THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 27539/2018 Between: Vijjeswarapu Kavi ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VVRAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WPNO. 27539 OF 2018 The instant Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “to issue the writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus aggrieved declaring the impugned order in appeal dated 09012017 of the 2nd respondent whereby rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the termination order dated 07 072016 of the 3rd respondent as arbitrary illegal capricious and contrary to the letter and spirit of rules CCS Temporary Services Rules 1965 and CRPF Rules 1955 and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner forthwith and pass 1. Heard Sri. V V Ramakrishna, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as cadet in CRPF with Service No. 1452772026 and was sent for respondent centre from 25.03.2016. He applied for leave for 3. nd training in the 2 5 days from 23.04.2016 to 27.04.2016 and the same was sanctioned. The petitioner is supposed to report to duty on 27.04.2016 but due to his ill-health, he underwent treatment and he did not report to duties in time. Later, the 3 respondent issued notice dated 26.05.2016 calling the petitioner to report to the center immediately with proper explanation for his unauthorized absence. The petitioner replied to the said notice by submitting an explanation enclosing certificate for his unauthorised absence. On 07.07.2016, the 4^^ respondent issued Termination order vide Order No. T.V.1/2016-EC-1II without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. medical / ' »7 Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2""^ respondent against the Termination Order issued by the 4*'^ respondent and the said appeal was also rejected by order dated 09.01.2017. 4. Learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner availed leave for 5 days from 23.04.2016 to 5. 27.04.2016 and did not choose to report to his center, on completion of his leave period. The 3^'^ respondent issued 3 notices to the petitioner seeking explanation for his unauthorised absence and the petitioner gave replies to all the notices stating that he fell sick and underwent treatment which is why he could not report to duties. The post held by the petitioner is an uniformed post which requires utmost discipline. The petitioner showed no such discipline and was absent from the duties without approval from the concerned authorities while he was in training period. The 4‘^ respondent rightly issued termination order of the petitioner following Rule 16A of CRPF Rules on conducting enquiry under Rule 27A. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2'"'^ respondent and the same was also rightly rejected. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of material available on record, as rightly put by the learned Deputy Solicitor General, the post held by the petitioner is an uniformed post in Reserved Forces. The petitioner obtained leave for 5 days and remained absent from his duties even after completion of sanctioned leave period, that too while he was in training period. The 3'"'^ respondent issued notices to the petitioner seeking explanation for his unauthorised absence and the petitioner explanation that he fell sick and replied to the notices underwent some treatment but gave no such material is placed on record. If such is the case, the petitioner should have informed to his center about his ill-health but he reported the same after petitioner was terminated from soon after his leave period was over receipt of notice from the 3'^^ respondent. The service by 4*^ respondent and the appeal filed respondent is also dismissed as devoid of merits. The petitioner intentionally absent from duty and did not choose to by the petitioner before the 2 nd report to duty. Viewed from any angle, this court does the part of the petitioner. In these ci not find any bonfides on circumstances, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No order Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stands closed. as to costs. Sd/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To SECTION OFFICER 1. One CC to SRI V.V. RAMA KRISHNA 2. One CC to SRI. r general OF INDIA [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies Advocate [OPUC] PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR sree HIGH COURT DATED:24/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.27539of 2018 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS