Unknown vs India For The Following Relief
2022 Latest Caselaw 2408 AP

                                                                                 RC,J
                                                                 W.P.No.24106 of 2020

                                        1


               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

                    WRIT PETITION No. 24106 of 2020

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of

India for the following relief:

"....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the entire action of the respondents, in issuing the present impugned memo No.DEE(O)HUPAdmn/ JAO/C2/D.No.1572 of 2018, dated 31.07.2018 of the 1st respondent, wherein rejecting the genuine claim of the petitioner for regularizing his suspension period from 18.04.2014 to 30.06.2015 and the same is treating as leave despite of clean acquittal from the competent court in C.C.No.09 of 2015 of Special Judge for trial of ACB cases in Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool on 25.07.2016 and not releasing his due increments since 2014 onwards and not revising his pay, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and contrary to the various judicial pronouncements in the subject matter."

2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that, on the

ground of pending criminal proceedings, he was denied annual increments

and was also not granted revision in the revised pay scales, though he was

subsequently acquitted.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, while he was working as

Lineman, Thurkalapanam, operation Sub Section, Penkonda, a case has been

registered against him by ACB and on that count he was placed under

suspension vide memo dated 19.04.2014 issued by the 1st respondent and

that he was reinstated into service vide memo dated 30.06.2015 of the 1st

respondent and accordingly, he joined duty. It is his further case that he has

been acquitted by Special Court for ACB cases, Kurnool, finding him not

guilty, vide its judgment dated 25.07.2016 and no appeal has been preferred RC,J W.P.No.24106 of 2020

by the State and the said judgment has attained finality. It is the further case

of the petitioner that he submitted a detailed representation to the

authorities requesting them to regularise the period of suspension and for the

consequential benefits and that it appears that the District Level authorities

made correspondence with higher authorities and ultimately issued the

impugned order dated 31.07.2018 wherein suspension period is treated as

leave to which the petitioner is eligible and to release all consequential

benefits by adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid. Aggrieved by

the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The respondents filed counter-affidavit, inter alia, denying the

contentions particularly referring to certain regulations at para-8 of the said

counter. For convenience, para-8 of the counter-affidavit is extracted

hereunder:

"8. It is respectfully submitted that, the Regulation 54(5) of Fundamental Rules states that "In a case falling under Sub-Rule(4),the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose:

5. Provided that if the Government servant so desires, such authority may direct that the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be converted into leave or any kind due to admissible to the Government servant.

6. As per Regulation 57(6) of Service Regulations Part-I, the incumbent shall not be entitled to anything more than what he would have received if he had been granted the leave admissible to him for the period of his absence from duty since his detention, the amount of subsistence grant already drawn by him being adjusted against his pay and allowances."

RC,J W.P.No.24106 of 2020

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed reply contending that the

regulations referred to at para-8 of the counter-affidavit of the respondents

are not applicable to the facts of the case and further contending that Sub

Rule(3) of 54(B) & 5 of Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules are not applicable

to the facts of the case.

6. Heard Sri Eethakota Venkata Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri

S.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Nagi Reddy,

learned standing counsel for the respondents.

7. The regulations referred to in the counter-affidavit filed by the

respondent are not at all applicable to the facts of the case and there is no

justification for the respondents to rely on the said regulations to reject the

claim of the petitioner. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents

fairly conceded the same.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while drawing attention of

this court to an order dated 03.08.2018 of the learned single Judge of our

composite High Court passed in W.P.No.27112 of 2018, which was placed on

record, submitted that the facts of the said case are analogues to the facts of

the case on hand. Similarly he also brought to the notice of this Court another

judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.36301 of 2018

filed along with reply. By relying on the above judgments, the learned

counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the writ petition in line with the

observations made therein.

RC,J W.P.No.24106 of 2020

9. The Writ petitions referred to above in the above judgments were

filed questioning the inaction of the authorities in not regularizing the

services, denial to grant annual increments and not granting revision in the

revised pay scales on the ground of pending criminal proceedings. A perusal

of the above orders show that the facts of the case on hand are similar to the

facts mentioned therein.

10. In view of the above, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the writ

petition directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders regularizing

the suspension period of the petitioner and release all benefits entitled to by

the petitioner consequent to such regularization, keeping in view of the

pronouncements referred to above.

As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand

closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

_________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 28th April, 2022 RR RC,J W.P.No.24106 of 2020

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION No.24106 of 2020

28th April, 2022

RR