THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.873 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appal is arising out of order dated
11.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.8313 of 2019 by the learned
Single Judge.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the
respondent/employee was working as Junior Assistant and at
a relevant point of time, he was placed under suspension vide
order dated 05.10.2006 alleging misappropriation of funds.
An enquiry officer was appointed and the order passed by the
learned Single Judge reveals that charges against the
employee are not proved. The disciplinary authority passed
an order dropping the charges. Meaning thereby, closing the
enquiry without awarding any punishment and therefore, he
was given a clean chit by the employer. The employee
submitted a representation for regularisation of the period of
suspension i.e., from 11.10.2006 to 05.06.2008 and for
treating the period as on duty. However, the representation
of the employee was rejected by order dated 30.03.2017
stating that the individual has not been fully exonerated of
the charges. The said order is reproduced as under:
2
"OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE TS. HYDEABAD
Rc.No.A1/1348/2007-17 Dt.30.03.2017
Sub:- Estt - Ms. Sri. K. Durga Prasad, Sr. Asst (Retired)
PHC Inugurthy Mahabubabad District - Requsting
for regularization of suspension period as on duty -
Non-entitled - Suspension period treated as Leave -
Orders - Issued.
Ref:- 1. Representation of the individual dated
01.02.2017 forwarded by the DM&HO
Mahabubabad vide Rc.No.E1/140/217, dt.
07.02.2017.
2. Note orders of the Director of PH & FW,
TS, Hyderabad, dt. 25.02.2017.
********
Whereas Sri K. Durga Prasad Senior Assistant PHC Inugurthy Mahabubabad District has made a representation vide reference 1st cited, to regularize tyhe suspension period from 11.10.2006 to 05.06.2008 as on duty.
After careful examination of the matter under F.R.54 (B) as the individual has not been fully exonerated of the charges, he is not entitled to treat the suspension period as on duty.
Hence, the suspension period from 1.10.2006 to 05.06.2008 is hereby regularized as eligible leave, further, the individual is instructed to submit the proposal along with service register to regularize the period as leave whichever is eligible.
Sd/- Dr. Y. Lalitha Kumar, Director of PH & FW, TS, Hyderabad."
The aforesaid order was subjected to judicial scrutiny and the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition directing the State to treat the period from 11.10.2006 to 05.06.2008 as spent on duty and release all consequential benefits against which the State Government has preferred the present appeal.
This Court really fails to understand as to how the respondent/employee has not fully exonerated. The 3 disciplinary authority in its wisdom decided to drop the enquiry. The enquiry was closed and the charges are dropped, as reflected in order dated 21.01.2017 and now the same disciplinary authority says that in the matter of regularising the suspension period the employee has not been fully exonerated.
In the considered opinion of this Court, already as the charges were dropped, the learned Single Judge was justified, keeping in view F.R. 54(B), in allowing the writ petition and directing respondent No.1 to treat the suspension period as on duty. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. If the order passed by the learned Single Judge has not been complied with, the same shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from today.
Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 29.11.2021 ES