THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.24294 OF 2011 Date:08.09.2011 Between: Pottala Dathathreyulu .. Petitioner And Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Warangal Division, Warangal and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.24294 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (ACTO). He was posted at Border Check Post (BCP) Wankidi. By proceedings dated 31.03.2011, the first respondent transferred him from BCP and posted him in the office of the second respondent. He was relieved at BCP on 01.04.2011. But he reported in his new posting on 29.06.2011 A.N. By order dated 30.06.2011, the second respondent informed the first respondent about this. It appears, by a letter in Rc.A1/198/2011, dated 01.07.2011, the first respondent advised the second respondent not to accept the joining report of the petitioner and to direct him to report before the first respondent. Accordingly, by communication dated 04.07.2011, the second respondent informed that the petitioner was directed to report before the first respondent. The petitioner contends that after he was transferred on 31.03.2011, he applied for Medical Leave to the second respondent and after expiry of the Medical Leave, he reported to duty on 29.06.2011 A.N. and that unless and until the transfer order is cancelled, he cannot be prevented from working as ACTO in the office of the second respondent. Taking these pleas, the petitioner filed O.A.No.5959 of 2011 seeking a declaration that the action of the first respondent in directing the second respondent to relieve him from the post of ACTO with a direction to report the former, as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to continue him in the office of the second respondent. By order dated 09.08.2011, the learned Tribunal dismissed the original application. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that when the Government servant proceeds on Medical Leave, he has to report to duty along with Medical Fitness Certificate in Form - A and Form – B as per the Andhra Pradesh Leave Rules, 1933 (Leave Rules) at the time of joining; as per F.R.106 of the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules an employee on transfer has to report to duty after availing the joining time admissible for six days or a maximum of 30 days; the petitioner reported after expiry of 89 days without Medical Leave, which is not in accordance with the Leave Rules; according to F.R.108 a Government servant who has not joined his duty within the joining time is not entitled to pay or leave salary after the period of joining time; and as the petitioner did not join within the time stipulated, the action of the first respondent was valid in directing him to report before him. We heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. As per F.R.106, it is competent to the State Government to make rules at the time of joining duty admissible in the event of transfer. The period of joining time can be a minimum of six days and maximum of 30 days. If a Government servant does not join in his post within the joining time as per F.R.108 he/she shall not be entitled to any pay or leave salary and he/she is liable for disciplinary action for misconduct for the purpose of F.R.15. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner did not join within the period of joining time. He went on leave for a period of 89 days and reported to duty before the second respondent only on 29.06.2011. Admittedly, he did not produce the Medical Fitness Certificate at the time of reporting to duty before the second respondent. Therefore, the acceptance of the joining report by the second respondent itself is irregular. In that context, if the first respondent had advised the second respondent to direct the petitioner to report before him, it cannot be faulted. The learned Tribunal considered the grievance of the petitioner with reference to the Leave Rules and relevant Fundamental Rules came to the correct conclusion. The petitioner can seek redressal by making an appeal to the higher authority and the O.A. is misconceived. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ____________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 08.09.2011 KH