THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 36266 OF 1998 Date: 15.02.2008 Between: P. Laxminarayana. … Petitioner and The Managing Director, AP.State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 36266 OF 1998 ORDER: The petitioner herein questions the action of the respondents in not paying him salary for the period from 17.07.1990 to 26.01.1995 as ‘Compulsory wait’ and in not giving effect to the proceedings dated 11.04.1994 whereby he had earlier been promoted as a Senior Assistant. The petitioner applied for leave from 11.11.1988 to 16.11.1988 and, on 17.11.1988, he sought extension of leave by one month. He, thereafter, abstained from duty till he submitted an application on 17.07.1990 expressing his willingness to join duty enclosing a fitness certificate. In the interregnum, the respondents telegraphically instructed the petitioner on 15.12.1988 to report for duty and the DM&HO, Machilipatnam was requested to examine the petitioner to confirm whether he was actually ill and was undergoing treatment. The D.M.& H.O. Machilipatnam, in his letter dated 06.01.1989, examined and recommended the petitioner to take rest upto 15.01.1989. However the petitioner again sought for leave from 17.01.1989 to 16.02.1989. The D.M& H.O. refused to sanction leave and directed the petitioner to report for duty. Subsequently another memo dated 01.02.1989 was issued calling upon him to join duty. However the petitioner, vide letter dated 01.03.1989, informed that he was still required to take rest as per the advice of the doctor since he was suffering from Jaundice. The petitioner again applied for leave for a period of one month from 17.03.1989 to 16.04.1989 without enclosing a medical certificate. The said leave application was also refused by the DM.O. Guntur vide memo dated 03.04.1989. The petitioner was issued charge memo dated 02.05.1989 calling for his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner submitted his explanation thereto on 01.06.1989 and thereafter, vide letter dated 17.07.1990, requested permission to join duty. The Divisional Marketing Officer, vide proceedings dated 20.08.1990, requested the first respondent to issue further instructions. The second respondent issued proceedings dated 06.09.1993 requesting the first respondent to issue further instructions whether the petitioner should be admitted to duty or not. Petitioner states that the first respondent, vide proceedings dated 21.01.1994, had instructed the second respondent to instruct the petitioner to obtain a certificate from the police to the effect that during the period when he was on medical leave, he was not involved in any criminal case. Pursuant thereto the second respondent issued a memo dated 25.6.1994 directing the petitioner to obtain and submit such a certificate to the second respondent. The first respondent, vide proceedings dated 11.04.1994, promoted the petitioner as Senior Assistant. However the order of promotion was not given effect to. The first respondent, vide proceedings dated 11.01.1995, permitted the petitioner to join duty, and consequently the second respondent issued proceedings dated 18.01.1995 permitting the petitioner to join duty and, accordingly, the petitioner joined duty on 27.01.1995. One other factor which is required to be taken note of is that pursuant to the charge memo dated 02.05.1989, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would rely on Rule 9(13) of the Fundamental Rules to contend that when a Government servant on return from leave is required to compulsory wait for orders of posting the period of compulsory wait must be treated as on duty and that he is entitled for pay during such period. There is no material on record to show that the respondent corporation had adopted the fundamental rules necessitating their having to pay salary to the petitioner for the period from when he reported for duty on 17.07.1990 till he was eventually permitted to join duty on 27.01.1995. While the counter affidavit is silent in this regard, Sri Ch. Jagannadharao, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent corporation, is also not in a position to show under which provision, rule or regulation the corporation had refused to permit the petitioner to join duty and had insisted that he had to obtain a certificate from the police that no criminal cases were pending against him. While the first respondent had the power to take disciplinary action against the petitioner for his long absence from duty, without sanction of leave, for a period in excess of 1½ years and, if considered necessary also to place him under suspension pending enquiry, the fact remains that subsequent to the petitioner having submitted a letter on 17.07.1990 expressing his willingness to join duty the respondent had neither chosen to conduct a departmental enquiry nor to place the petitioner under suspension. The charge memo dated 03.05.1989 is obviously for a period anterior thereto and while the first respondent was entitled to take disciplinary action against the petitioner for his period of absence subsequent to the earlier charge memo dated 03.05.1989 till he eventually joined duty on 17.07.1990, the respondent - corporation has, for reasons best known, chosen not to do so. No rule which enables the respondent to defer promotion granted to the employee earlier has also been brought to the notice of this Court. This case is indeed a sad reflection of the manner in which public sector undertakings function and the casual manner in which employees of such companies discharge their duties. The petitioner has, obviously, been under the impression that he could abstain from duty for, however, long a period he thought necessary without sanction of the competent authority and for the mere asking should be permitted to join duty. Similarly the respondent corporation, giving a go-by to all norms of fair play, made the petitioner run around their office by not taking any action on his letter dated 17.07.1990. It is, indeed, surprising that an employee should be called upon to obtain a certificate from the police that he is not involved in a criminal case. Which rule or regulation empowered the respondent corporation to insist on production of a character certificate from the police, for the period of absence, is also not known. The petitioner’s request, if accepted, would require the respondent -corporation to pay him salary from 17.07.1990 till 26.01.1995 i.e., for a period of 4½ years. Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that, since this dispute has been pending for the past more than a decade and a half, the petitioner is wiling to forego 50% of the salary for the period from 17.07.1990 till 26.1.1995, so that a quietus can be given to the entire sordid episode. Sri Ch. Jagannadha Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent has no objection to this course of action. It must also be remembered that, while the corporation could have taken disciplinary action against the petitioner for his absence from 03.05.1989 to 17.07.1990, it has, for reasons best known, chosen not to do so for the past 17 years. Since the petitioner was, admittedly, prevented from joining duty despite his having reported for duty on 17.07.1990, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay him 50% of the salary, as has been consented to on behalf of the petitioner, for the period from 17.07.1990 till 26.01.1995. With regards the promotion which the first respondent had accorded on 11.04.1994, it is necessary to note that disciplinary proceedings were then pending, a charge memo having been issued on 02.05.1989 itself. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in imposition of the punishment on 26.04.1998. No regulation which entitles the first respondent to deny promotion thereafter has been brought to the notice of this Court. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion after 26.12.1998, when the disciplinary proceedings stood concluded in accordance with rules and regulations and issue necessary orders in this regard. The entire exercise, both with regards payment of 50% salary to the petitioner for the period from 17.07.1990 till 26.01.1995 and consideration of his case for promotion as Senior Assistant from 27.12.1998 onwards, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. _______________________________ Date: 15.02.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR