1 APHC010402012021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY,THE EIGTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 24644/2021 Between: 1. S J SAILAJA, S.J.SAILAJA, D/O.S.GOPALA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC- DEPUTY STATISTICAL OFFICER, KADAPA R/O.FLAT NO.438, VASAVI'S INDRAPRASTHA, STREET NO.1, CZECH COLONY, SANATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 018 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, VASUDHA SHELTERS, A-BLOCK, FIRST FLOOR, LIC COLONY ADDA ROAD, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, NAGARAJUPETA, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 426001. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 topleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in imposing major penalty of removal vide office proceedings No.4271/Admn.II/ ASOs/H.Q.rs./2016, dated 18-02-2020, without issuing any show cause notice, as illegal, arbitrary, non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice and not following the service regulations and in gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue re- posting orders as per the Representations dated 11.9.2020, 29.11.2019, 23.9.1919, 16.6.2019, 26.9.2016 and 3.10.2016, and settle the retire mental and consequential benefits as per eligibility and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 21.03.2025 vide IA No. 1 of 2025 in WP No. 24644 of 2021. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 grant interim direction directing the Respondents to immediately consider the Petitioners Representations dated 11.9.2020, 29.11.2019, 23.9.1919, 16.6.2019, 26.9.2016, 3.10.2016 pending disposal of the above writ petition 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 Pleased to permit the petitioner herein to amend the prayer from “declaring the action of the Respondents in not issuing Re-posting Orders by considering the Petitioner’s Representations dated 11.9.2020, 29.11.2019, 23.9.1919, 16.6.2019, 26.9.2016, 3.10.2016, submitted to the 2nd Respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and further direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioners Representations dated 11.9.2020, 3 29.11.2019, 23.9.1919, 16.6.2019, 26.9.2016, 3.10.2016, and issue re- posting orders by following due process and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case” to “declaring the action of the Respondents in imposing major penalty of removal vide office proceedings No.4271/Admn.ll/ ASOs/H.Q.rs./2016, dated 18-02-2020, without issuing any show cause notice, as illegal, arbitrary, non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice and not following the service regulations and in gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue re-posting orders as per the Representations dated 11.9.2020, 29.11.2019, 23.9.1919, 16.6.2019, 26.9.2016 & 3.10.2016, and settle the retire mental and consequential benefits as per eligibility and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SANTHISREE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 24644/2021 ORDER:- Heard Smt. V. Santhi Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the action of the respondents in imposing major penalty of removal from service vide office proceedings No.4271/Admn.II/ ASOs/H.Q.rs./2016, dated 18.02.2020, without issuing any show cause notice, the instant Writ Petition has been filed. The petitioner further sought a direction to the respondents to issue re-posting orders by considering the petitioner’s representations dated 11.09.2020, 29.11.2019, 23.09.1919, 16.06.2019, 26.09.2016 & 03.10.2016. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Statistical Officer in the 2nd respondent's department. After one year of service, she applied for leave, which continued until 17.06.2008 and was treated as Extraordinary Leave by proceedings dated 27.05.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner requested an extension of leave until 2013. Due to her extended absence, the respondents issued a Charge Memo dated 12.06.2009 under Rules 20 & 21 of 5 the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. The petitioner submitted an explanation in response. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings reposting the petitioner as Assistant Statistical Officer in the Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Hyderabad. The petitioner contends that, due to unavoidable circumstances, she was compelled to go on leave from 16.08.2009, and reported for duty only on 17.06.2016, requesting for issuance of reposting orders. It is contended that during her period of leave, she was promoted to the post of Deputy Statistical Officer by proceedings dated 27.08.2013, issued by the 2nd respondent. In these proceedings, at Column No.3, which pertains to 'Present Place of Working' at Serial No.3, her status was recorded as 'Long Leave.' On 17.06.2016, she reported for duty sought for issuance of posting orders. It is argued that despite repeated requests and representations, the respondents have not issued any reposting orders. Thus the instant Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have not taken any action on the joining report submitted by the petitioner. It is stated that she had further submitted representations to the authorities to issue posting orders and since she had no other alternative remedy, she had approached this Court by way of an instant Writ Petition. 6 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Barun Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Others1. 6. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner submitted a leave application dated 13.08.2008, requesting one year of leave from 18.08.2008. She also asked for permission to use public holidays on 15.08.2008 and 17.08.2008, and an Optional Holiday on 16.08.2008, to take care of her ailing husband, who was unable to return to India. It is stated that in her leave application, she provided only Hyderabad address, although she later travelled to other countries; she did not mention the address of her intended destination. She also failed to annex copy of Passport or VISA indicating permission to leave the country for personal reasons. It is contended that as a government servant, she was required to submit her application 15 days in advance and obtain written permission (No-Objection) from the HOD before leaving the country. However, she submitted her application and left her headquarters without securing the HOD's approval. Her leave request was rejected, and she was notified by Office Memo No.9013/Admn.II/1/2008, dated 20.12.2008, instructing her to report to duty immediately. Subsequently, a Charge Memo was issued to her by Office 1 MANU/WB/0714/2013 7 Memo No.7650/Admn/2/ELU/06, dated 12.06.2009, requiring her to submit an explanation within 15 days. She submitted her explanation by registered post on 08.07.2009. After being absent from duty for 342 days from 15.08.2008 to 22.07.2009, she returned to duty on 23.07.2009. She was reposted vide proceedings No.9013/Admn.II/1/2008, dated 31.07.2009. The petitioner after working for 25 days, from 23.07.2009 to 16.08.2009, again submitted another leave application dated 17.08.2009, requesting one year of leave without pay from 17.08.2009, along with permission to leave headquarters. Once again, she left headquarters without the HOD's permission. The leave request was denied, and the petitioner was informed vide Office Memo No. 9013/Admn.II/1/2008, dated 27.08.2009, with instructions to report to duty immediately. It is contended that the petitioner sent another application dated 26.12.2009, requesting leave for 4 years and 11 months to take up employment in USA, enclosing a job offer letter. 7. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent issued a Charge Memo and Article of Charges for the petitioner's unauthorized absence under Rules 20 & 21 of the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, vide Memo No.9013/Admn.II/1/2008 dated 30.12.2010. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 24.02.2011, after lapse of two months. It is stated that the petitioner was on leave without prior sanction from 17.08.2009 to 16.07.2014 8 (1795 days) and remained absent without authorization up to 16.06.2016. The total period of unauthorized absence was from 17.08.2009 to 16.06.2016 (2496 days, i.e., 6 years and 10 months). 8. It is further contended by the respondents that the petitioner submitted an application dated 17.06.2016, requesting posting orders. Prior to this, the petitioner was granted Extraordinary Leave (EOL) for a total of 2001 days, equivalent to 5 years 5 months and 26 days, in multiple periods between 26.11.1990 to 17.06.2008. It is contended that the said duration exceeded the prescribed limit as per FR 18, Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Leave Rules, 1933. The petitioner subsequently submitted representations to the Director on 26.09.2016, 03.10.2016, and 22.02.2017, requesting posting orders. A letter addressed to the Government by respondents vide, Lr. No.4271/Admn.II/ASOs/Hqrs/2016, dated 20.04.2017, enclosing the application dated 17-06-2016, seeking necessary orders. 9. Pursuant to the Charge Memo, an Enquiry Officer was appointed vide proceedings No.4271/Admn.II/ASOs/Hqrs/2016, dated 31.01.2018, to conduct an enquiry on petitioner’s unauthorized absence and the charges framed against her. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 23.03.2018. The enquiry was conducted ex parte, as the petitioner was not available at the 9 address mentioned in her applications, and the Enquiry Officer stated that the charges framed against her were proved for action in accordance with the Rules. 10. It is contended that the enquiry report was submitted to the Government with a request to issue necessary instructions to take further action vide letter No.4271/Admin.II/ASOs/Hqrs /2016, dated 14.06.2018. The Government vide Memo No. 1117/Plg.III/A2/2017-2, dated 10.09.2018 with concurrence from Finance (HR-II/FR) Department, requested the Director to expedite the disciplinary action. The Government vide Memo Α.Ρ.No.1117/Plg.III/A2/2017-2, dated 12.09.2019, reiterated the instructions already issued for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner as the Director is the competent authority for the category of Assistant Statistical Officers. The petitioner sent her representations through mail dated 16.06.2019 (mail), 23.09.2019 (mail), 29.11.2019. 11. It is further contended that, pending the disciplinary proceedings, the representations were not considered. The petitioner travelled to the USA from 17.08.2009 to 16.06.2016, totaling 2,496 days (i.e., 6 years and 10 months), without obtaining prior permission or sanctioned leave. And that on several occasions, the petitioner provided incorrect addresses when applying 10 for leave and left both headquarters and the country without the Head of Department's authorization. Thus vide the impugned proceedings, the petitioner was removed from service. Hence the Writ Petition. 12. Considered the rival submissions. 13. In the facts of the case, the petitioner remained absent from duty for an inordinately long period such prolonged unauthorized absence from duty constitute grave misconduct. The petitioner having failed to discharge her duties without any justifiable cause, her removal from service is neither arbitrary nor illegal. In the absence of any mitigating circumstances, she is not entitled to any indulgence, or any equitable relief from this Court. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:08.01.2026 MVK 15. After pronouncing the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested for a direction for grant of the benefits that are due to the petitioner, 11 since the said issue is not the subject matter of the Writ Petition at any point of time, this Court is not inclined to grant the same. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a representation before the respondents, if she is entitled to claim under law. The respondents shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, if any service benefits are due to her. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:08.01.2026 ANI 12 320 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.24644 of 2021 Date:08.01.2026 MVK