IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4827 of 2008 Between: A. Mohan S/o.A. Pedda Rama Raju Engineer, Colleges Sub Division, T.T. Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Officer, T.T. Devasthanams, K.T. Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 The Chief Officer, T.T. Devasthanams, K.T. Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Dy. Executive Engineer, Colleges Sub-Division, T.T. Devasthanams, K.T. Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare that the inaction on the part of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to join in to duties as per his joining report dt.11-2-2008 even though a clear circular dt.30-5-2001 issued by the 1st respondent in inexistence which action itself be declared as arbitrary illegal, and unsustainable and thereon to consider the dt. 11-2-2008 to as on the date of joining for consideration with all consequential benefits treating it as on duty in the interests of justice and equity and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SAMINENI KISHORE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO(SC FOR TTD) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4827 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Assistant Technical Officer in the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, and he is attached to the office of the 3rd respondent. He remained absent from 26-04-2007 onwards. He applied for leave and went on extending the same, from time to time, up to 29-02-2008. On 12-02-2008, he submitted the joining report. He filed this writ petition with a prayer to declare the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to join duties; by placing reliance upon the circular dated 30-05-2001. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents passed an order dated 20-03-2008, placing the petitioner under suspension, pending enquiry. By filing W.P.M.P.No.8505 of 2008, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondents to revoke the order of suspension and thereby, pave the way, for resumption of duties, by him. Sri Samineni Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner remained absent, due to unavoidable circumstances, and by the time he reported to duty, no departmental proceedings were initiated against him. He contends that the 1st respondent issued a circular dated 30-05-2001, clarifying that, whenever any employee remains absent from duty, and thereafter reports to duty, the concerned heads of department shall ensure that necessary permission is accorded for such employees, to join duty, even where disciplinary action is contemplated. He submits that the order of suspension was passed as an after thought, and that the petitioner was falsely implicated in criminal cases, so much so, this Court has granted anticipatory bail, on finding prima facie case. He further contends that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, in case the petitioner is taken on duty. Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that apart from being absent, almost for a year, without sanctioned leave, the petitioner had suppressed the factum of his involvement in criminal cases. He contends that the petitioner cannot have the liberty of remaining absent, and reporting to duty according to wish. Except submitting an application and thereafter issuing telegrams, one after the other, extending the leave, the petitioner did not approach the concerned authority, to obtain sanction of his leave. Even where leaves are to the credit of any employee, he can remain absent only on the basis of sanctioned leave. The facility of obtaining ex post facto sanction is only in cases of emergency. The petitioner does not state that, either he has undergone serious illness, or that a sudden development has taken place, disabling him from reporting to duty. The spell is almost ten months. The circular dated 30-05-2001, cannot be treated as a basis, to put a premium on the unauthorized absence of employees. Whenever an employee reports to duty, after a long spell of absence, the employer can certainly verify the matter and decide, whether or not to allow such an employee, to join duty. Another charge against the petitioner is that he had withheld the information about his involvement and implication in two criminal cases. Though the allegation is about commission of offence against third parties, as an employee of the respondents, the petitioner was under obligation to inform them. The question, as to whether the petitioner had violated any Service Rules, or resorted acts of misconduct; needs to be considered in the departmental proceedings, that are contemplated. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order of suspension, more so, when it is not specifically challenged, nor to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to join duty. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The respondents shall, however, ensure that the petitioner is paid the subsistence allowance, from time to time, in accordance with the relevant Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-04-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}