the petitioner was diagnosed with Hepatitis – B (Positive) and that the said disease is chronic. By letter dated 10.11.2012 the opinion of DIG Medical CH Impal informed that Hepatitis – B (positive) is chronic disease and found that the petitioner was not fit for service.

*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

+WRIT PETITION No.18444 OF 2013

%13.02.2024

#Between:

K.Subrahmanyam, S/o.K.Anjinappa,

aged 22 years, Occ: NIL, R/o.D.No.1-

55, Naranagipalli Village and

Mandal, Roddam Mandal, Anantapur

District.

…Petitioner

and

Union of India, Rep: by its

Secretary to the Government

Ministry of Home Affairs, North

Block, Central Secretariat, New

Delhi – 110001 and two others.

…Respondents

!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar

^Counsel for the Respondent/s : Sri.J.V.K.Yagnadutt,

 Central Government Counsel

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

This Court made the following:

2024:APHC:6641

-2-

WP.No.18444 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

+WRIT PETITION No.18444 OF 2013

#Between:

K.Subrahmanyam, S/o.K.Anjinappa,

aged 22 years, Occ: NIL, R/o.D.No.1-

55, Naranagipalli Village and

Mandal, Roddam Mandal, Anantapur

District.

…Petitioner

and

Union of India, Rep: by its

Secretary to the Government

Ministry of Home Affairs, North

Block, Central Secretariat, New

Delhi – 110001 and two others.

…Respondents

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 13.02.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may

be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of order may be marked

to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair

 copy of the order?

 Yes/No

_______________________

 JUSTICE HARINATH.N

2024:APHC:6641

-3-

WP.No.18444 of 2013

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N

WRIT PETITION No.18444 of 2013

ORDER :

 The petitioner filed the present writ petition aggrieved by

the orders dated 11.12.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent

and subsequent orders dated 03.06.2013 passed by the 2nd

respondent by which the petitioner services were

terminated.

2. The petitioner joined the respondent during the year 2011

as Water Carrier. On 02.07.2012 the petitioner suffered

with fever and he was admitted in hospital and discharged

on 25.07.2012.

3. Thereafter the petitioner continued his services till

10.11.2012, when the 3rd respondent issued a notice

stating that the petitioner was diagnosed with Hepatitis – B

(Positive) and that the said disease is chronic. By letter

dated 10.11.2012 the opinion of DIG Medical CH Impal

informed that Hepatitis – B (positive) is chronic disease and

found that the petitioner was not fit for service.

4. The petitioner submits that the petitioner got rechecked at

Bangalore and that he was found Hepatitis – B (Negative)

2024:APHC:6641

-4-

WP.No.18444 of 2013

result and he tested negative for Hepatitis – B. The

petitioner got retested at Osmania General

Hospital,Hyderabad and was tested negative for Hepatitis –

B.

5. Armed with the two medical reports from different hospitals

from two different states, the petitioner filed an appeal

before the Appellate Authority seeking setting aside the

orders of termination and sought reinstatement into

service. The 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal on the

ground that the appeal was submitted beyond the period of

three months and as such it was rejected.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Hepatitis-B (positive) disease would not come in the way of

discharging duties with the respondent and that apart

Hepatitis – B (positive) is a curable disease or atleast at

manageable disease if the patient is on medication.

7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central

Government for respondents submits that the orders of

termination are inconsonance with Rules 5 and 6 of Central

Civil Services (Temporary Services Rules), 1965. The

learned Standing Counsel submits that the orders of

2024:APHC:6641

-5-

WP.No.18444 of 2013

termination have been issued only after receiving the

communication from the competent authority that on

account of the ill-health of the petitioner, he would be unfit

for service. The appeal was also rightly rejected and as such

prays this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

8. As seen from the pleadings and the material submitted

along with writ petition, there is no reason mentioned as to

why the respondents have chosen to ignore the medical

certificates furnished by the petitioner from two different

hospitals. At the most the respondents ought to have

referred the petitioner for re-medical examination, the

respondents have for the reasons not mentioned in the

appellate order passed by the 2nd respondent dated

03.06.2013 ignored mentioning about the medical reports

submitted by the petitioner. The respondents were at liberty

to refer the petitioner to the medical board for a better

assessment. The respondents have failed to refer the

petitioner to the medical board also.

9. The petitioner is appointed as a Constable/Water Carrier in

C.R.P.F. The relevant provision of law relating to Discipline

among men of the Force is governed by Chapter – VI of

2024:APHC:6641

-6-

WP.No.18444 of 2013

CRPF, Rules, 1955. Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955. The

Procedure for the award of punishments is detailed. As seen

from the said Rule it is evident that the punishment of

removal from service can be imposed only after conducting

a due enquiry by the Commandant in so far as the

petitioner is concerned.

10. In the present case, no such enquiry is caused or

conducted. The respondents have passed the impugned

orders which are hereby held to be illegal, irrational and

beyond jurisdiction of the respondents, as they are have not

followed the applicable rules of C.R.P.F, accordingly the

impugned orders are hereby set aside.

11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed directing the

respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with

continuity of service. The respondents shall also pay 50 %

of the back wages to the petitioner for the period during

which he was not in service on account of illegal

termination. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby

directed to comply the orders of this Court within a period

of six weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. There

shall be no order as to costs.

2024:APHC:6641

-7-

WP.No.18444 of 2013

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.

________________________

JUSTICE HARINATH.N

Dated 13.02.2024.

KGM

2024:APHC:6641

-8-

WP.No.18444 of 2013

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N

WRIT PETITION No.18444 of 2013

Dated 13.02.2024

KGM

2024:APHC:6641