DIRECTED TO PAY ALL TERMINAL BENEFITS TO THE DECEASED FAMILY MEMBERS

The applicant submits that he  is working as Police Constable at Chitvel P.S.  YSR District Kadapa.   While the applicant was working at KondapuramPolice Station in the year 1992, he  fell sick  from 29-6-1992  to 26-10-1993 in piece meal. the same was informed to his superiors. When he approached for fresh passport to continue on leave, the station house officer, Kondapuram refused the same  on the ground that the Circle Inspector of Police instructed him not to give medical pass port.  He never absent to his duty.   The applicant was taken on duty in the year 1996.   In the  mean while   a criminal cases  U/s. 420 of IPC and Cr. U/s.147, 148, 448,324, 307 r/w 149 of IPC  of Kondapura PS on the ground that the applicant was entered  into the house of private person   and further charged that the applicant was entered agreement with one person i.e. Class - I contractor  to do business of exporting iron-scrap  from South Central railways Secundrabad filing Tenders on his name in April 1993 and October 1993 were registered  cases against the applicant.  and violated Rule 9 (4) and 10 of APCS (conduct ) Rules 1964. 

(b)     The applicant submit that   he never involved in criminal case and the alleged false case against  the applicant was acquitted.  He neither entered into the house of private person  nor caused bleeding  injuries due to grudges in the business of iron scrap  and thus the provision  of Rule 3  (1) of APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 will not applicable  and in the year April and October 1993   The applicant submit that he  was very much in service  up to 1999.  if the charges are true  they ought to have initiate disciplinary action immediately and   the 2^nd respondent  has issued the above    charge dt. 28-1-2011   after laps of 6 years i.e. in the year 1999  and also re-opened and appointed Enquiry Officer after laps of 17 years is illegal arbitrary and liable to be setaside   and which is  contrary to reported Supreme Court judgment.  Due to ill fate of the applicant, the applicant was dismissed from service in the year 2000 vide proceeding No. C.dt. 10-7-2000.  Against the said dismissal order the applicant was filed O.A.No. 4637/2000 and the same was allowed by setting aside the alleged  charge and against the order of the  Tribunal,  the respondents has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High court by way of Writ petition and the same was dismissed as follows.

“ In this background of the matter, We feel that the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and it does not require any interference by this Court.  Hence this writ petition is devoid of merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed No costs”.

After the above dismissal of the W.P. which was filed by the respondents  the applicant was reinstated  into service on dt.9-11-2010.  The applicant is in service and continued as such.

(c )    The applicant submit that the 2^nd respondent has issued another  false charge memo dt. 2-2-2011  that the applicant was deserted from service without leave or permission and without intimating him where abouts to his superiors from 29-6-1992 to 19-7-1992 and thereby  violated rule 3 (1 ) of APCS (Conduct )Rules 1964.  In  this connection the applicant submit that he  reported sick in the year 1992  and continued to avail medical leave up to 26-10-1993.  Thereafter the respondents  treated his leave as “ Leave without pay ” and he was in service up to 1999.    Keeping grudge in mind  against the applicant, the respondents again re-opened false charges and asking him to submit explanation in the year 2011 i.e. after laps of 17 and 18  years  as illegal and arbitrary and violation reported supreme court judgment and Article  16, 21 and 311(2 )  of Constitution of India.  Thus above charges are liable to be set-aside. 

The respondents contended that the charge sheet was issued in the year 1999, for some other charge the applicant was dismissed from service. Later he was reinstated in service. Therefore the earlier charge for period of 21 days was reopened and appointed enquiry officer for conducting enquiry in the matter.  The applicant was challenged the appointment of Enquiry officer before the Hon’ble Tribunal and got interim suspension of the E.O. thereafter the applicant was died Legal Heirs of the applicant was brought on record.  The Tribunal after hearing the matter, charges dt 28-1-2011 is setasided on ground that after laps of 18 years can not be opened and O A is disposed of with a direction directing the respondents to all terminal benefit to the applicant’s family members with in period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.  The above case is argued by me on behalf of the applicant and got favorable order in favour of the applicant.