THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.13843 of 2002
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. M.Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. R.Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 22.12.2000 issued by respondent No.1 treating the period of suspension of the petitioner from 07.10.1994 to 18.05.2000 as on leave and for a further direction to the respondents to treat the said period as on duty. Petitioner seeks consequential reliefs as well.
3. While the petitioner was serving as Assistant Lineman in the establishment of Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations), Sattupally in Khammam District, he 2 was placed under suspension with effect from 07.10.1994 on the ground that he was an accused in crime No.155/94 of Sattupally Police Station registered under Sections 302 and 202 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
4. Subsequently, on completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sattupally. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Khammam, whereafter it was registered as S.C.No.66 of 1995. Criminal Court by the judgment and order dated 14.03.2000 acquitted the petitioner of the charges framed against him holding him not guilty. Thereafter, respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated 16.05.2000 reinstated the petitioner in service. On such reinstatement, petitioner joined on 19.05.2000 and continued his service. Of course, now by lapse of time, he has superannuated from service.
5. Grievance of the petitioner pertains to the suspension period from 07.10.1994 to 18.05.2000. Petitioner approached the authorities for regularising the said period. 3 However, by the order dated 22.12.2000, the request was turned down by treating the said period as on leave.
6. The writ petition was filed in the year 2002. Twenty years have gone by since then. Respondents have not bothered to file any counter affidavit. As a result, averments made and contentions urged by the petitioner in the writ affidavit have remained uncontroverted.
7. Petitioner's suspension was on account of his alleged involvement in a criminal offence. The suspension continued throughout the period of trial. Ultimately, petitioner was acquitted by the criminal Court following which petitioner was reinstated in service.
8. Considering the above situation, we are of the view that respondents were not justified in treating the entire period of suspension as on leave, thereby denying any consequential benefit, including retirement benefit, to the petitioner for the aforesaid period.
4
9. F.R.54-B deals with a case of reinstatement of a Government servant after withdrawal of suspension order. Sub-rule (1) thereof says that when a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order -
a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be; and b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.
10. Insofar the order dated 22.12.2000 is concerned, we find that respondent No.1 had held that the period from 07.10.1994 to 18.05.2000 should be treated as on leave limiting the pay and allowances to the subsistence allowance already paid. Referring to the request of the petitioner that he had requested for regularisation of the suspension period as a period spent on duty in view of his 5 acquittal by the criminal Court without applying for leave, respondent No.1 regularised the said period as on leave limiting the pay and allowances to the subsistence allowance already paid.
11. We are afraid, respondent No.1 did not consider the outcome in the criminal case which was the sole reason for placing the petitioner under suspension for a long period. During this entire period no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, it was wrong on the part of the respondents in construing the suspension period as a period spent on leave.
12. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 22.12.2000 and direct the respondents to treat the suspension period i.e., from 07.10.1994 to 18.05.2000 as a period spent on duty by the petitioner. Consequently, petitioner would be entitled to his pay and allowances for the said period minus the subsistence allowance granted to him. This period shall also be taken into account while computing pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 6
13. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 28.10.2022 vs