Telangana High Court
B. Seshagiri Rao vs The Govt. Of Telangana on 13 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Petition(Tr). No.2602 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare that a) G.O.Ms.No. 338, dated 24.05.2012 to the extent of not treating the period of suspension of the applicant from 04.11.1999 to 15.06.2000 and 04.04.2001 to 31.08.2003 and not paying salaries to the applicant from 01.07.2005 to 24.05.2012 to the applicant as illegal and arbitrary; b) declare that the action of respondent in not promoting his as Tahsildar from the date of promotion of his juniors, in pursuance of his acquittal in Crl.A.No.205 of 2005 dated 27.01.2012 as illegal and arbitrary; c) declare that applicant is entitled to get his period of suspension from 04.11.1999 to 15.06.2000 and 04.04.2001 to 31.08.2003 be treated as duty and also entitled for salaries from 01.07.2005 to 24.05.2012; d) applicant is entitled for notional promotion as Tahsildar from 2006 from the date which his juniors were promoted.
2
Brief Facts of the case:
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Office Subordinate in the MRO Office, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District. While he was working, ACB Officials laid trap on the petitioner on 17.10.2000 and Crime was registered under Sections 7, 11, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the case was numbered as C.C.No.24 of 2000 on the file of Principal and Session Judge for SPE and ACB Cases - IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on the ground that the applicant has demanded and accepted Rs.3,000/- from the defacto complainant.
3. The Principal and Sessions Judge for SPE and ACB Cases cum IV Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad convicted the petitioner vide judgment in C.C.No.24 of 2000 dated 15.02.2005 sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed Crl.A.No.205 of 2005 before this Hon'ble Court. This Court vide judgment dated 27.01.2012 allowed the said criminal appeal by setting aside the judgment passed in 3 C.C.No.24 of 2000 dated 15.02.2005 consequently the petitioner herein stood acquitted.
4. It is submitted that from 04.11.1999 to 15.06.2000 and again from 04.04.2001 to 31.08.2003, the petitioner was kept under suspension on the ground that he was convicted by the Criminal Court, subsequently, applicant was dismissed from service w.e.f 15.07.2005 vide G.O.Ms.No.1292 dated 01.07.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the dismissal order before the Tribunal in O.A.No.3911 of 2006. The Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2008 directed the respondents to reinduct the applicant forthwith. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed questioning the O.A.No.3911 of 2006 vide W.P.No.18265 of 2009, this Court vide order dated 02.09.2009 suspended the judgment of the Tribunal and writ petition was allowed thereafter on 03.08.2022.
5. Thereafter, the applicant made a representation to respondent on 11.04.2012 requesting to reinstate him into service in view of his acquittal in Crl.A.No.205 of 2005 vide judgment dated 27.01.2012 and to reinduct him into 4 service and regularize his suspension period as on duty as he is due for retirement on 30.09.2012. Thereafter, Government accordingly issued G.O.Ms.No.338 dated
25.04.2012 reinstating the petitioner into service. However, the Government decided not to treat the period of suspension and dismissal not on duty but the said period shall count for the purpose of national increment, pay fixation, leave, qualifying service for promotion. He would further submit that he was reinstated into service on 24.05.2012 and was retired from service on 30.09.2012.
6. Petitioner would further submit that the judgment of the ACB Court in C.C.No.24 of 2000 was set aside by this Court and he was honourably acquitted by this Court. In view of his acquittal from the criminal case, he is entitled to get his period of suspension from 04.11.1999 to 15.06.2000 and 04.04.2001 to 31.08.2003 as regularized and entitled for consequential benefits. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not promoted as Tahsildar because he was illegally dismissed from service and in view of the acquittal in Criminal Case, petitioner is 5 also entitled for notional promotion as Tahsildar and also entitled for fixation of pay.
7. In view of the above circumstances, action of the respondents in not treating the period of suspension as on duty vide G.O.Ms.No.338 dated 24.05.2012 is being questioned in the present writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, has relied on F.R.54-A(2)(ii) which states that the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding dismissal and the date of judgment of the Court shall be regularised in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (5) of Rule 54. The relevant portion of the Rule is is extracted hereunder:
"54(A)(2)(i)...
(ii) The period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of judgment of the court shall be regularised in 6 accordance with the provisions contained in sub-
rule (5) of rule 54."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has relied on G.O.Rt.No.2171 dated 19.06.2015 wherein one N.Mallaiah, Sub-Treasury Officer (Retd.,) who was acquitted in C.C.No.12 of 2000 in Crl.A.No.69 of 2006 by the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Government after careful examination of the matter has considered the suspension period as "On duty" under Fundamental Rule 54(3) of Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules and Subsiding Rules. The relevant portion of the said Government Order is extracted herein:
"7. After careful examination of the matter, Government hereby order to drop further action against Sri N.Mallaiah, Khammam District on his acquittal in C.C.No.12/2000 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.69/2006 and the suspension period treated as "On Duty" i.e., 05.07.1999 to 05.02.2002 and 21.03.2006 to 30.04.2006 (upto superannuation) under FR 54(3) of A.P. Fundamental Rules and Subsiding Rules." 7
10. Heard Mr.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II. Perused the record. No counter affidavit has been filed, even though several opportunities were given.
11. In view of all the above observations and on perusal of G.O.Rt.No.2171 dated 19.06.2015, this Court deems it proper that the petitioner herein is also entitled for the same relief as granted to one Mr.N.Mallaiah vide G.O.Rt.No.2171. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.18265 of 2009 filed by the petitioner herein for setting aside the O.A.No.3911 of 2006 dated 12.02.2008. However, liberty was granted to the respondent therein to pursue his remedies in accordance with law, if he is acquitted in the criminal appeal.
12. In the case on hand, admittedly the petitioner was acquitted in Crl.A.No.69 of 2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and the respondents have not filed counter affidavit bringing forth the details of subsequent events. A careful examination of the said G.O.Ms.No.338 dated 24.05.2012 issued by 8 Principal Secretary to Government/respondent No.1 reveals that since there is alleged involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case, the dismissal/suspension of the petitioner cannot be treated as "wholly unjustified". It is pertinent to note that even after the petitioner was acquitted in Crl.A.No.205 of 2005, there are no justifiable reasons for treating the period of suspension and dismissal as "not on duty". The respondents ought to have considered the suspension period and the period between the date of dismissal and the date on which the petitioner was acquitted as "on duty". As such the G.O.Ms.No.338 dated 24.05.2012 is not sustainable to the extent of treating the suspension and dismissal periods of petitioner as "not on duty".
13. For the foregoing reasons cited above, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside G.O.Ms.No.338 dated 24.05.2020 to the extent of not treating the period of suspension of the petitioner from 04.11.1999 to 15.06.2000 and 04.04.2001 to 31.08.2003 and the intervening period between the date of dismissal i.e., 15.07.2005 till the date of judgment in Crl.A.No.205 of 9 2005 dated 27.01.2012 as "on duty". The respondent authorities are directed to treat the above said period of the petitioner as "On Duty" in terms of Fundamental Rule 54- A(2)(ii) and the said period shall count for the purpose of notional increments, pay fixation, leave, qualifying service for promotion etc.
14. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 13.02.2024 mrm