THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.14640 OF 2010 ORDER This writ petition is directed against an order dated 2-6-2010 made in proceedings Rc.No.Admn.II- 2/251/209 issued by the first respondent whereunder the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why he shall not be removed from service for his prolonged un- authorized absence for indulging in professional pre- occupations. The facts are not much in dispute. It appears that the petitioner while working as a Junior Lecturer in Physics in Sree Ramachandra Junior College, Adikmet, Hyderabad applied for extra-ordinary leave from 2-8-2004 to 30-9-2004 vide his application dated 31-7-2004 for prosecuting higher technical studies. According to the petitioner, the said leave was granted and it was extended from time to time. After expiry of the sanctioned leave, he reported to duty on 26-2-2009. When he reported to duty, he was informed that some of the posts have been re-deployed and he was asked to approach the Director of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. However, the petitioner filed an application on 26-2-2009 to the concerned College, requesting to permit him to join duty, after obtaining necessary approval from the Director of Intermediate Education. His application dated 26-2-2009 was forwarded to the Director of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad by the College and it was communicated that the petitioner was also willing to work any where as per the directions. Since no action has been taken by the respondents permitting him to join duty, he approached this Court and filed W.P.No.23455 of 2009. While admitting the writ petition on 9-2-2010, the respondents were directed to consider the representation purported to have been filed by the petitioner on 26-2-2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Although, the said order was received, the respondents have not taken any action within the stipulated time. Therefore, he was constrained to file C.C.No.447 of 2010, complaining willful disobedience, on the part of the respondents. During pendency of the said contempt case, the impugned order dated 2-6-2010 was passed by the respondents directing the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service for his pro-longed un-authorized absence for indulging in professional pre-occupations. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard both sides. In the impugned proceedings, it was stated that the petitioner absented from duties from 1-8-2004 to 28-2- 2009 i.e., without prior permission or sanction from the competent authority and also misled the authorities on the pretext of prosecuting higher studies, which is highly irregular . It appears, while admitting this writ petition, an interim order was passed suspending the impugned order dated 2-6-2010. In spite of it, according to the petitioner, he was not taken into service. Therefore, C.C.No.1320 of 2010 was filed. The facts as narrated above are not in dispute. The only allegation that there was sanction of leave by the competent authority has been denied. The proceedings of the Regional Joint Director, Intermediate Education, Zone-VII, Hyderabad, dated 4-11-2004 speak that Correspondent of the College is the competent authority for sanction of leave and therefore, requested the Correspondent to take action immediately without detrimental to the academic instructions in the College. Further, it appears, thereafter leave of the petitioner was extended from time to time by the Secretary-cum- Correspondent of Sree Ramachandra Junior College, Adikmet, Hyderabad. After expiry of leave, when the petitioner intended to join duty on 1st March, 2009, he was not permitted to join and he was informed that his services were re-deployed in a College at Mahaboobnagar District. But, neither he was permitted to join duty by the College in Mahaboobnagar District nor the College in which he worked in Hyderabad. On the other hand, the present show cause notice dated 2-6-2010 was issued by the authorities as to why he shall not be removed from service in view of his un-authorized absence and mis-conduct on his part. In fact, even during pendency of the writ petition in spite of suspension of the impugned order dated 2-6-2010, the respondents have passed the final orders dated 12-7-2010. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents justified passing of final orders dated 12-7-2010 stating that a show cause notice has already been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner, in fact, submitted his explanation on 12-6-2010 and having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents had taken a decision to remove him from service since he had un-authorisedly absented from duties for more than four and half years. There is no necessity to go into all the details. Absenteeism is an ‘enumerated mis-conduct’ under the service rules. Unless and until a detailed enquiry is conducted by issuing a charge sheet an employee cannot be thrown out. Mere issuance of a show cause notice and calling for explanation and taking a decision to remove is not permissible under law. Thus, the impugned order dated 2-6-2010 and the consequential order dated 12.7.2010 are in gross violation of principles of natural justice, apart from being contrary to the procedure required to be followed. Therefore, the impugned order dated 2.6.2010 and the consequential order dated 12.7.2010 are liable to be set aside on this ground alone and accordingly, set aside. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with immediate effect and conduct enquiry or otherwise to keep him under suspension, if it is desirable and complete the enquiry and take appropriate action as required under law. The petitioner shall be paid arrears of salary from 1-3-2009, as such. ______________ C.V.RAMULU,J rkk Dated: 28-12-2010