THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 11436 OF 2009 Date of Disposal: 15.9.2009 Between: The Director of Andhra Pradesh Police Academy, Hyderabad and others …Petitioners And J. Srinivas Reddy …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 11436 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) 1. Respondents before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A. No. 4086 of 2008 have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari against the order of the Tribunal, dated 29.4.2009 allowing the said O.A. 2. The respondent herein was a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector (civil). The respondent herein was undergoing training at the Andhra Pradesh Police Academy, Hyderabad from 14.6.2007 onwards, and accoding to him, while he was undergoing training he developed pain in testicle and approached Medicare Centre of Police Academy on 30.6.2007 where attending doctor examined him and made an endorsement referring him to a surgeon on the same day. Basing upon that endorsement, the respondent claims that he applied for leave to get medical treatment outside the Police Academy. He was given one week outdoor rest and since the respondent was having unbearable pain in the testicles, he went to a private hospital for treatment at Sai Vani Hospital, Domalguda, Hyderabad where diagnostic tests were done and he was advised to undergo surgery and rest for ten days. As the respondent had no relief even after taking treatment from the said hospital, he went to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and approached Dr. V. Laxman Rao, Deputy Civil Surgeon who treated and advised him to take rest from 7.7.2007 to 19.12.2007. The respondent claims that he is now relieved of the problem and he is physically fit to resume duties. In the interregnum the first writ petitioner had issued a memo dated 13.7.2007 directing the respondent to report for training immediately. As the respondent was taking treatment by the time he received the notice, he replied by his representation dated 31.7.2007, followed by another representation dated 1.8.2007 explaining the situation and requesting the authorities to grant him leave on medical grounds. Thereafter the first writ petitioner issued a show-cause notice dated 17.8.2008 directing him to explain his unauthorised absence and as to why stringent action to discharge him from the training should not be taken against him on that ground. The respondent gave a reply dated 11.9.2007 explaining his position, but the first writ petitioner passed the impugned proceedings dated 27.3.2008 discharging him from the training and struck off his name from the Police Academy training. Questioning the aforesaid order, the OA was filed. The respondent herein urged before the Tribunal that under Rule 9 of the A.P. Police Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Rules, 1999 (for short “The Rules”) if he was absent for more than one month due to medical disability, which resulted in temporary medical invalidation, he could be sent for training afresh with the next batch of trainees, if he is found fit by that time and based on that and keeping in view the documents supporting the medical problem of the respondent and his subsequent medical fitness, it was contended that he is entitled for training afresh along with next batch by treating the period during under which he was under medical disability as temporary medical invalidation. 3. The said OA was resisted by the writ petitioners by filing a counter-affidavit stating that in spite of two notices dated 13.7.2007 and 17.8.2007 the respondent did not join the training. It was also stated that under Rule 9 of the Rules, the trainees shall be provided required medicare at Government cost and they shall be entitled for special treatment, if any required arising as a sequel to training activities and the respondent had to take treatment at the Police Academy where Medicare centre was available. It was also contended that the respondent was trying to explain his unauthorised absence by producing some medical record here and there which has no legal authenticity. The writ petitioners also contended that even though permission to attend interior classes was granted to the respondent, but he has not availed it and remained continuously absent for a long time for more than 80 days and as such the order of discharge was fully justified. 4. We have considered the aforesaid submissions including the Rules under the A.P. Police Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Rules, 1999 and Rule 9 of the said Rules reads as under, “The trainees shall be provided required medicare at Government cost. They shall be entitled for special treatment, if any required arising as a sequel to training activities. The absence from training exceeding one month due to medical disability shall result in temporary medical invalidation requiring the trainee to undergo the training afresh with the next batch of the trainees if found fit by that time. The candidate shall be disqualified if found not fit to undergo training before the commencement of training of the next batch. The trainees shall not be entitled for any stipend for the period of waiting due to medical invalidation for undergoing training with the next batch.” 5. It is not in dispute that on 30.6.2007 when the respondent experienced pain, he approached Medicare centre at the Police Academy and the endorsement of the doctor in the health card of the respondent shows that on account of complaint of pain in the testis, the respondent approached the doctor who prescribed some medicines and on his request, he was referred to a surgeon. Then on 2.7.2007 when the doctor examined the respondent once again, he made an endorsement advising surgery and rest for ten days. The respondent was under the medical treatment of doctor at Medicare centre of Police Academy. Since there was an endorsement referring the respondent to a surgeon, the respondent approached Sai Vani Hospital, Domalguda, Hyderabad and had undergone the required tests including Doppler Study of Scrotum test. The respondent was clinically examined at the hospital apart from receiving further treatment and thereafter the respondent states that he had obtained further treatment from the Osmania General Hospital, Hydrabad and produced the medical fitness certificate. Thus the medical problem of the respondent was known to the Police Academy through its Medicare centre and it is apparent that he was referred to a private doctor thereafter. Since the Medicare centre did not have a surgeon or surgical facilities, he was permitted to avail those medical facilities outside the Police Academy. A reading of Rule 9 of the Rules shows that the trainees shall be provided required medicare at Government cost and they are entitled for special treatment, if any required arising as a sequel to training activities. In this case also the respondent required special treatment as he was advised by the doctor in Medicare centre at Police Academy to undergo surgery and for that he was referred to a surgeon of his choice. It cannot, therefore, be said that during this entire period, the respondent was unauthorisedly absent, but apparently he was taking medical treatment at one hospital or other. The writ petitioners have also issued memos and show cause notices to which the respondent has given appropriate replies keeping the writ petitioners informed of the treatment which he was undergoing. 6. In the light of these factual positions, the contention of the writ petitioners that the respondent was unauthorisedly absent is not sustainable. The basis for discharging the respondent from the training by the first writ petitioner is the ‘unauthorised absence’ of the respondent from the training. We are unable to appreciate that because the absence of the respondent was not unauthorised absence and his absence was on medical grounds and even under Rule 9 of the Rules such temporary absence on medical grounds can be treated as temporary medical invalidation. The consequence of such temporary medical invalidation only would result in absentee trainee being liable to take the training afresh along with next batch and in such a case the absentee trainee would be deprived of all other benefits including stipend. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly assessed all these aspects and has allowed the OA with a direction that the respondent be sent for training afresh along with next batch. We are, therefore, of the view that the said direction of the Tribunal needs no interference by this Court under it’s certiorari jurisdiction. We make it clear that in terms of the Rule 9 of the Rules the respondent shall be sent for fresh training along with next batch provided he is found fit by that time and he is not entitled to any stipend and other benefits for the period during which he was under temporary medical invalidation. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH J. Dt. 15.9.2009 KR _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR J.