Ponnaganti Chiranjeevi Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 247 AP

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                  WRIT PETITION No.20101 of 2021

ORDER:-

       The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the

respondents in not considering the representation dated 09.02.2021

submitted by the petitioner, wherein he requested to treat the suspension

and dismissal periods as on duty and to pay all consequential benefits to

him, as illegal and arbitrary.

Heard Mr.M.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL

appearing for respondents 2 to 4.

The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the affidavit, are as

follows:-

The petitioner was appointed as Helper on 03.02.1993 and

thereafter promoted as Assistant Lineman in the year 1998. He was placed

under suspension on charges of corruption and later dismissed from

service on the ground of conviction in C.C.No.19/2002 on the file of

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. Aggrieved by the said

judgment, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.1610 of 2005 before the erstwhile

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and by an order dated

14.12.2013, the said appeal was allowed setting aside the judgment in

C.C.No.19/2002.

In view of the same, the petitioner submitted representations dated

17.01.2014 etc., to the respondent authorities requesting them to

reinstate him into service. As there was no response, the petitioner filed

W.P.No.38824 of 2014 and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated

into service. As the said orders were not implemented, the petitioner filed

NJS, J W.P.No.20101 of 2021

Contempt Case No.708 of 2015 and after filing of the same, the

respondents issued reposting orders on 23.05.2015. However, the

petitioner has not been paid the consequential benefits and back wages

etc., The petitioner was promoted as Lineman on 05.06.2019 and his

seniority was not counted though the criminal case instituted against him

ended in acquittal. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner made a

representation dated 09.02.2021 to the respondents to treat the

suspension period and dismissal period as on duty and to pay all

consequential benefits. However, the respondents have not taken any

steps on the said representation. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the

contentions raised in the Writ Petition inter alia submits that as the

criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner were set aside by

virtue of orders in Crl.A.No.1610 of 2005, dated 14.12.2013, which has

become final, the period of suspension as also dismissal period has to be

treated as on duty and the respondents though reinstated the petitioner

into service, have not taken any steps to regularize the said period, as on

duty and thereby the petitioner is seriously prejudiced.

The learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.V.Jankiraman Vs. Union of India1

submits that when an employee is completely exonerated in

criminal/disciplinary proceedings and is not visited with the penalty even

of censure indicating thereby that he was not blameworthy in the least, he

should not be deprived of any benefits including the salary of the

promotional post. He submits that the normal rule of "no work no pay"

is not applicable to such cases, where the employee although he is willing

1 1991 AIR 2010

NJS, J W.P.No.20101 of 2021

to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his.

Learned counsel also relies on F.R.No.54(1)(a) and (b) of Fundamental

Rules and contends that the respondent authorities are required to make a

specific order regarding pay and allowances in terms of said Rule since the

petitioner was reinstated as a result of the orders passed in the appeal

filed by him. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner, in fact,

made a detailed representation on 09.02.2021 to the

3rd respondent and though more than six months have been elapsed, the

same did not yield any positive response and therefore the petitioner is

constrained to file the present Writ Petition seeking appropriate directions.

On the other hand, Mr.Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for respondents on the basis of averments made in the

counter affidavit submits that as per the APSEB Service Regulations as

adopted by APEPDCL, the period of suspension shall be treated as leave

and the petitioner will not be entitled to anything more. Referring to

Memo, dated 14.05.1990 issued by the erstwhile APSEB he further

submits that in respect of an employee under suspension, who was

dismissed from service on conviction by a Court of Law, but reinstated into

service because of acquittal by High Court, the period of dismissal till the

date of his joining duty on reinstatement shall be treated as "dies-non"

and the earlier period of suspension shall be treated as leave. Accordingly,

he submits that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, as the same is

devoid of merits.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his

arguments by placing the reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court, which deserves appreciation, the grievance of the petitioner which

prompted him to file the present Writ Petition as seen from the Writ

NJS, J W.P.No.20101 of 2021

prayer is inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the

petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2021. All the aspects as set out in

the Writ Petition including the judgments on which reliance is placed were

elaborately stated in the said representation. The matters raised by the

petitioner in respect of his claim and the judgments in support of the same

are required to be considered by the 3rd respondent and appropriate

orders have to be passed by duly taking into account the applicable

Service Regulations. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it

would be appropriate to leave the matter to the 3rd respondent to take

necessary action on the petitioner's representation, dated 09.02.2021

instead of examining the merits or otherwise of the matter, in the present

Writ Petition.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the

3rd respondent to take necessary action on the petitioner's representation

dated 09.02.2021 and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of

eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by duly

taking consideration all the relevant aspects including applicability of

F.R.No.54(1)(a) and (b) of Fundamental Rules, apart from the applicable

Service Regulations governing the petitioner. There shall be no order as to

costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall

stand closed.

__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 20.01.2022

IS

NJS, J W.P.No.20101 of 2021

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

Writ Petition No.20101 of 2021 Date: 20.01.2022

IS