P.Suresh vs State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 638 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 638 AP
Judgement Date : 5 February, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

P.Suresh vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 February, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                    WRIT PETITION NO.2725 OF 2021

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking the following relief:-

".... to issue a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 6th respondent in not implementing the Proceedings in Rc.No.4635/B1/2016, dated 19.01.2019 issued by the 4th respondent, thereby directing to sanction his periodical increments and Pay Revision Commission (PRC) 2015, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of settled principles of service jurisprudence, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1991 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to implement the Proceedings in Rc.No.4635/B1/2016, dated 19.01.2019 issued by the 4th respondent and pay him all attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders."

2. It is the case of petitioner that while the petitioner was

working as Secondary Grade Teacher (Urdu) at MPPS,

Manikeswaram, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District, the petitioner

was placed under suspension on the allegation that he had beaten

a 5th class student on 17.06.2016. The articles of charges were

framed against the petitioner, finally he was found guilty and

imposed minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without

cumulative effect. Thus, the petitioner has to forego one

increment, but thereafter the respondent authorities did not

release any increments and pay allowances, on the representation

made by the petitioner, the District Educational Officer passed an

order dated 19.01.2019 directing the Mandal Educational Officer,

Santhamagulur, the 6th respondent herein to sanction periodical

increments, revise the pay scale as per PRC, 2015 immediately

and directed to submit compliance report to the District

Educational Officer, but so far no action has been taken by the 6th

respondent on the direction issued by the District Educational

Officer, same is now questioned in the present writ petition.

3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for

Services-III fairly submitted that an order was passed by the

District Educational Officer on 19.01.2019 directing the

6th respondent herein to release the periodical increments and

revise the pay scale as per PRC, 2015, despite it, the

6th respondent did not take any action for release of periodical

increments and pay allowances as per PRC, 2015, it is in violation

of F.R.24 of Fundamental Rules.

4. Now, the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to

claim service benefits like increments for the period of suspension.

5. According to F.R.24 of the A.P. Fundamental Rules, an

increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it

is withheld. An increment may be withheld from a Government

servant by the State Government or by any authority to whom the

State Government may delegate this power if his conduct has not

been good, or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering

withholding of an increment by the authority, it shall state the

period for which it is withheld, and whether the postponement

shall have the effect of postponing future increments.

6. Therefore, stoppage of increments or withholding of

increments can be done by the State Government or authority to

whom such power is delegated by the State Government in terms

of F.R.24. But, no such order was passed till date for withholding

the increments, exercising power under F.R.24. An increment may

however be withheld as a measure of punishment after completion

of departmental enquiry, if any, initiated, but not before conducing

any enquiry.

7. The contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be

accepted for the reason that, mere pendency of disciplinary

proceedings without imposing any punishment by an order of the

Government, exercising power under F.R.24 withholding an

increment is illegal and the contention cannot be accepted.

8. Similar question came up before the Division Bench of this

Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Gopala Rao1, wherein

the Division Bench issued direction to release the increments

holding that the petitioner therein is entitled to claim service

benefits.

9. In The Regional Deputy Director of Town Country

Planning v. Sri Markonda Patnaikuni Janardhana Rao (referred

supra) (to which I am one of the member), the Division Bench of

this Court considered by another Division Bench of this Court in

State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Gopala Rao (referred supra) and

observed as follows:

W.P.No.6617 of 2014 dated 04.11.2004

"The law declared by the Division Bench, in its order in W.P.No.661 of 2004 dated 04.11.2004, is that withholding of increments is also a measure punishment; and increments can only be withheld by following the process prescribed, for imposing penalties, under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. It is not in dispute that such proceedings have been instituted against the respondent-applicant."

10. Thus, viewed from any angle, when there is no order from

the Government or by any authority to whom power is delegated to

withhold the increments in terms of F.R.24, withholding of

increments is an illegality and contrary to F.R.24. Hence, by

applying the principles laid down in the above judgments, it can

safely be concluded that the petitioner is entitled to claim service

benefits like release of increments etc.

11. In Mritunjai Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh2, a question

came up for consideration as to whether the employee during

suspension period was entitled to claim service benefits, including

increments. The Court concluded that, increments falling due

during suspension should be added granted to him and