1. Petitioner, in his affidavit, narrated a detailed sequence of events leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition. He was initially appointed as a Driver Operator in the Fire and Emergency Services Department on 15.08.1987. Subsequently, he was selected as a Constable-cum-Driver in the Transport Department. Pursuant to this selection, he submitted resignation letter to the Fire Station Officer at Parkal, Warangal District, and joined Transport Department, where he worked up to 14.12.1993. It is asserted, he made a request to the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Warangal to relieve him from his duties to enable him to return to his parent department ie. Fire and Emergency Services Department and accordingly, he rejoined his parent department on 09.04.2004, based on orders dated 31.03.1994 issued by the Director General of Fire and Emergency Services.

               1.1. It is stated, while so, on 02.04.1994, memo dated 02.04.1994 was issued, which led to an enquiry. The petitioner contends that based on the orders of the Director General of Fire and Emergency Services, a punishment of reduction of pay by three stages with cumulative effect was imposed on him, and the period of absence from 08.04.1992 to 08.04.1994 was treated as ‘not on duty’. The Appeal filed by petitioner resulted in modification of punishment to reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect, while the period of absence was again treated as ‘not on duty’.

               1.2. Petitioner further stated that at the time of his initial appointment, he executed an agreement or bond with the Fire and Emergency Services Department, committing to serve the department for a period of seven years after completing the Driver Operator course. However, he submitted his resignation while working at Parkal Fire Station in Warangal District, effective from 08.04.1992. As per the bond, amount was sought to be recovered from him, and an intimation was sent on 15.04.1994 for payment of Rs. 10,350/- due to his failure to adhere to the service conditions. During an enquiry by the Regional Fire Officer, Central Region, Hyderabad, it was discovered that petitioner had been appointed as a Constable-cum-Driver in the Transport Department. Based on this information, the Divisional Fire Officer, Warangal, addressed letter to the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Warangal, on 09.12.1993, informing them that petitioner had joined the Transport Department without permission from the Fire and Emergency Services Department. Consequently, petitioner was dismissed from service by proceedings dated 16.03.1994 of the Transport Department, and he rejoined the Fire and Emergency Services Department on 09.04.1994.

               1.3. Petitioner is stated to have submitted representation dated 11.08.2014, requesting that the period from 09.04.1992 to 16.03.1994 be treated as on duty for all purposes. This representation was forwarded by the Director General, State of Telangana, to the Government vide letter dated 11.10.2014. However, the Government, without proper consideration, treated the period from 09.04.1992 to 16.03.1994 as ‘Dies Non’. petitioner argues that a reading of the letter Rc. No. 11679/E2/2008, dated 29.06.2013, from the Director General of Fire Services, clearly indicates that he joined the Transport Department on 17.03.1992 and was dismissed from service on 16.03.1994, meaning he worked during that period. Treating this period as ‘Dies Non’ is, according to the petitioner, highly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the record. Petitioner contends that the service rendered by him in both the Fire Services Department and the Transport Department, which are government organizations, should be considered.

2. The 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that petitioner was appointed as a Driver Operator in the Fire and Emergency Services Department on 15.08.1987 and is currently serving as Station Fire Officer, Fire Station, Manthani, Karimnagar Division. He was sponsored by the District Employment Officer, Warangal to the post of Transport Constable. Pursuant to the Proceedings dated 17.03.1992, he reported to duty in the Transport Department on 09.04.1992, having absented himself from the Fire Services Department. He tendered resignation to the post of Driver Operator while working at Parkal Fire Station and absented himself from 08.04.1992. Since petitioner did not remit Rs. 10,350/- as per the agreement, his resignation was not accepted by the Divisional Fire Officer, Warangal. It is emphasized that the petitioner was in government service at the time of his sponsorship by the Employment Officer, Warangal, but failed to inform the Transport Department of this fact.

               2.1. It is further stated, petitioner was issued charge memo and a Show Cause Memo by the Deputy Transport Commissioner for not disclosing his government service. The explanation provided by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, leading to his dismissal from service vide Proceedings dated 16.03.1994 of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Warangal, effective from 16.03.1994. This respondent acknowledges that petitioner submitted representation dated 28.12.1992, stating that he had reported for duty at Fire Station, Parkal on 07.11.1992 at 03:00 PM but was not permitted to perform duty due to a lack of instructions from the Divisional Fire Officer, Warangal. However, the Director General of Fire Services Office, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, issued instructions via Memo dated 09.09.1993, to the Divisional Fire Officer, Warangal, to take petitioner back to duty as Driver Operator and initiate suitable disciplinary action for his willful absence and working in another department. Accordingly, petitioner was taken back to duties on 09.04.1994.

               2.2. It is further stated, the Regional Fire Officer, Central Region, Hyderabad, framed articles of charges against petitioner and imposed punishment of ‘Reduction of pay by three stages with cumulative effect on future increments and pension’, and the absence period from 08.04.1992 to 08.04.1994 was treated as ‘Not on Duty’ vide Proceedings dated 06.11.1996. Petitioner filed a mercy petition to the Director General of Fire Services, Hyderabad, requesting to set aside the punishment. Consequently, punishment was modified to ‘Reduction of Pay by three stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect on his future increments and pension’, and the absence period from 08.04.1992 to 08.04.1994, during which he worked in the A.P. Transport Department as Transport Constable, was ordered to be treated as ‘Not on Duty’ by the Director General of Fire Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide Proceedings dated 29.01.2008. The respondent acknowledges that the petitioner submitted a further representation to the Government requesting the setting aside of the punishment. The Government requested information for further action, and the Director General, Telangana State Disaster Response and Fire Services, Hyderabad, furnished the desired information vide Letter Rc. No. 11679/E2/2008, dated 11.10.2014. The respondent states that the Government, after examining the representation of the individual and the circumstances reported by the Director General, decided to treat the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 09.04.1992 to 16.03.1994 as ‘Dies Non’ and the period from 17.03.1994 to 08.04.1994 as ‘Compulsory Wait’, issuing orders vide G.O. Rt. No. 998, Home (Services-IV) Department, dated 27.11.2015. Hence, it is prayed that Writ Petition be dismissed as devoid of merits.

3. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned counsl for petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Home and Services-I for respondents.

4. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that admittedly, petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver Operator in the Fire and Emergency Services Department on 15.08.1987; while serving in that capacity, he was selected for the post of Transport Constable in the Transport Department; he therefore, submitted resignation from the Fire Services Department and joined the Transport Department on 09.04.1992. The petitioner's resignation was, however, not accepted by the Fire Services Department, as he had not fulfilled the condition of service requiring him to serve for a period of seven years after completion of the Driver Operator course, having executed a bond to that effect. A sum of Rs. 10,350/- was sought to be recovered from him for breach of this bond. Petitioner's absence from Fire Services Department was willful, and he had not obtained any prior permission or sanction from his parent department to seek employment elsewhere.

5. The counter of the 3rd respondent makes it clear that petitioner did not disclose to the Transport Department that he was already a government servant at the time of his selection and appointment, hence, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which ultimately culminated in his dismissal from the Transport Department vide Proceedings dated 16.03.1994, by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Warangal which means he was not honourably relieved from the Transport Department but was dismissed for cause. This fact is crucial in assessing the nature of the service rendered by the petitioner during the period in question.

6. Upon dismissal from the Transport Department, petitioner was taken back into the Fire and Emergency Services Department on 09.04.1994, pursuant to instructions from the Director General of Fire Services. The department, however, did not condone his unauthorized absence. It initiated disciplinary proceedings against petitioner for his willful absence from duty and for working in another department without permission. These proceedings resulted in imposition of a punishment of reduction of pay by three stages with cumulative effect, and the period from 08.04.1992 to 08.04.1994 was treated as ‘Not on Duty’. This punishment was later modified on his mercy petition to reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect, but the period of absence was still treated as ‘Not on Duty’.

7. Petitioner's grievance is that Government, while passing G.O. Rt. No. 998 dated 27.11.2015, treated the entire period from 09.04.1992 to 16.03.1994 as ‘Dies Non’ which he argues is contrary to the record, as he had actually worked in the Transport Department during the period from 17.03.1992 to 16.03.1994. He contends that this service in the Transport Department should be counted for all purposes, or at the very least, treated as ‘Compulsory Wait’. Respondents, in their counter, clarified that petitioner's absence from the Fire Services Department was entirely unauthorized; he did not take leave, nor did he obtain permission to join another government department. The resignation he submitted was never accepted. The petitioner's subsequent employment in the Transport Department was secured through sponsorship by the District Employment Officer, but he concealed his government service status. This concealment was a serious breach of conduct and led to his dismissal from the Transport Department. The respondents argue that the period of unauthorized absence cannot be treated as service for any purpose, as it would reward the petitioner for his misconduct. The respondents have also pointed out that the petitioner's absence was treated as ‘Not on Duty’ even during the disciplinary proceedings, and this decision was affirmed upon review. The Government, after examining the matter, decided to treat the unauthorized absence as ‘Dies Non’, which is a term used to denote a period that does not count as service for any purpose, including seniority, pay, and pension. Respondents have also highlighted that the period from 17.03.1994 to 08.04.1994 was treated as ‘Compulsory Wait’ by the Government, showing a degree of leniency, but the period of unauthorized absence was justifiably treated as ‘Dies Non’.

8. From the above discussion, it is to be seen, petitioner's conduct throughout this episode proves the gross indiscipline and a flagrant violation of service rules. Petitioner, as a government servant, was bound by the conduct rules and service regulations. He was required to adhere to the conditions of his service, including the bond he had signed to serve for seven years. His decision to resign and join another department without permission was a clear breach of his obligations. The fact that his resignation was not accepted and he was absent without leave makes his actions even more egregious. He cannot be allowed to benefit from his own wrongdoing. A delinquent employee cannot seek the benefit of service for a period of unauthorized absence, even if he was technically employed elsewhere. The employment in the Transport Department was itself tainted by the petitioner's concealment of his government service and his subsequent dismissal. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that his service in the Transport Department should be recognized for the purposes of seniority, pay fixation, or any other benefit in his parent department.

9. The impugned G.O. is passed by the Government after examining the petitioner's representation and the circumstances reported by the Director General, duly taking into account the fact that petitioner was absent without authorization for a considerable period and that his service in the Transport Department was not regular or bona fide. The decision to treat the period as ‘Dies Non’ is a reasonable exercise of the Government's power to regulate the service conditions of its employees. The period from 17.03.1994 to 08.04.1994 was treated as ‘Compulsory Wait’ which is a period of absence from duty with permission. This distinction is crucial and shows that the Government has given due consideration to the facts of the case. The petitioner cannot claim parity with cases where employees have been on ‘Compulsory Wait’ with permission. Petitioner's absence was willful and unauthorized, and it cannot be equated with a period of "Compulsory Wait."

10. Further, it is to be noted, petitioner has not provided any justification for his unauthorized absence or for his failure to obtain permission. The mere fact that he worked in another department does not entitle him to have that period counted as service in his parent department. The rules governing the counting of service for the purpose of seniority and pension are clear and do not permit the inclusion of unauthorized absence. One other aspect to be observed is petitioner has not raised any challenge to the disciplinary proceedings or the punishment imposed on him; his challenge is limited to the Government order treating the period as "Dies Non." Petitioner cannot challenge the Government order without first challenging the foundation on which it is based, i.e., the disciplinary proceedings and the finding that his absence was unauthorized. Since the petitioner has accepted the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment, he cannot now seek a different characterization of the period of absence.

11. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned order cannot be found fault with. Hence, the Writ Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

12. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

13. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.