Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K P S Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2024
APHC010307282021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 18201/2021
Between:
K P S Prasad ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T S N SUDHAKAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES IV
The Court made the following Order:
This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking the following relief:
".... to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the
respondents not treating the suspension period as compulsory
wait (treated as on duty for all purpose) from 25.03.2009 to
28.07.2010 though the petitioner acquittal in Criminal Case vide
C.C.No.16 of 2009 on 28.09.2012 by the Hon'ble Court of SPL.
Judge for Trail of ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, as highly illegal,
arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Fundamental Rules and contrary to
orders of the Honble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court apart
from violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India
and consequently direct the respondents to treating the
suspension period from 25.03.2009 to 28.07.2010 as on duty with
all consequential benefits...."
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as
MNR in the year 1983. Thereafter, he was appointed as Attender in the year
1996 and thereafter, he promoted as Tracer in the year 1999 and Town
Planning Overseer in the year 2002. The petitioner further promoted as Town
Planning Supervisor in the year 2013 and subsequently further promoted as
Town Planning Officer in the year 2018. When the petitioner was working as
Town Planning and Building Oversser at Bheemunipatnam Municipality,
Visakhapatnam district on baseless allegation, the ACB authorities registered
a case against the petitioner under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide Crime No.4/RCT-VSP 2009 of ACB,
Visakhapatnam range on 25.03.2009. On the ground of involved in criminal
case, the petitioner was kept under suspension on 03.04.2009. Subsequently
pending of the criminal case, the petitioner ws reinstated into service on
26.07.2010. The above said criminal case was ended by acquittal on
28.09.2012 vide C.C.No.16 of 2009 by the Court of Special Judge for Trail of
ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. After acquittal in criminal case, the petitioner
made representation to the authorities on 23.09.2013, requesting to treat the
suspension period as on duty. The 3rd respondent forwarded the same to the
2nd respondent for taking further action. Hence, the petitioner made a
representation to the 2nd respondent on 07.02.2017 and 23.02.2017. But the
same are pending before the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the
present writ petition has been filed.
3. Counter affidavit was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 denying all the
allegations made in the petition. It is stated in the couner affidavit that the
petitioner while officiating as Town Planning Building Overseer at
Bhimunipatnam Municipality, was caught red handed at theoffice of the
Commissioner, Bheemunipatnam Municipality, when the petitioner demanded
and accepted bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- for doing official favour of approving
modified plan for G+2 building and the accused was arrested by the ACB
authorities on 25.03.2009 under the provisions under Section 165 Cr.P.C. and
the case was registered against him in Cr.No.04/RST-VSP/2009 under
Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 of the ACB-Vsp range on
25.03.2009. Hence, the petitioner was kept under suspension w.e.f.
25.03.2009 vide Procdgs.Roc.No.2732/2009/M3, dated 03.04.2009 of the 2nd
respondent herein, in connection with ACB Trap case. Charge sheet filed
before III Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge for ACB
Cases, Visakhapatnam on 31.08.2019. Subsequently, as per the directions of
the Government in Memo No.5064/Vig.l/2009-2, MA & UD Department, dated
17.07.2010, the orders of suspension were revoked and the petitioner was
reinstated into duty vide Procdgs.Roc.No.2732/2009/M3-1&2, dated
26.07.2010 and posted to Samalkot Municipality and the petitioner joined on
duty on 29.07.2010 at Samalkot Municipality. The III Additional District and
Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam has
delivered the judgment on 28.09.2012 in C.C.No.16 of 2019 against the
petitioner, who was found not guilty of the charges framed under Sections 7,
13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and acquitted under Section 248 (1)
Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the DG, ACB informed the government that they intend
to file criminal appeal before the High Court on the acquittal judgment of lower
court. The government have accorded permission to file Criminal Appeal
against the Judgment dated 28.09.2012 in C.C.No.16 of 2009.
4. Heard Mr.T.S.N.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III, appearing for the
respondents.
5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the contents
urged in the writ petition, submits that, in view of the acquittal in criminal case
the suspension against the petitioner is unjustified and the petitioner is fully
eligible for suspension period from 25.03.2009 to 28.07.2010 as treated as on
duty for all purposes including pay and allowances as per Fundamental Rules
FR 54(B). He further submits that the respondents have not sanctioned and
released the increments for the year 2009 to 2020 to the petitioner. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9356 of 2021 before this Court and
this Court vide order dated 06.05.2021, directed thje respondents to consider
the case of the petitioner for release of increments from the year 2009 to
2020, strictly in accordance with law and take appropriate decision in the
matter.
6. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of District Manager, APSRTC
vs. Labour Court, Guntur1, wherein this Court held that:
"Where an emloyee has been found in a regular trial, not
to be guilty of any misconduct or commission of any crime or other
misconduct, it will be wholly unreasonable to hold that the employee
should still suffer the loss of remuneration and other benefits for the
period of his suspension which merges in his order of acquittal. It
amounts to sanctioning and awarding punishment to an innocent
party.(para 11) The order of suspension merges in and automatically
ceases to be operative upon the passing of the final order of acquittal
in criminal proceedings. The effect of such a merger would clearly
revive the temporarily suspended rights of the employee to get his full
remuneration @ Page-AP133 for the period of his suspension.(para
12) From the reason of the fact that interim suspension cannot legally
be a measure of punishment flows the right of the employee to full
remuneration."
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the
above decision, requests this Court to allow the writ petition.
7. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the
ACB case against the petitioner is still pending, as the ACB authorities have
preferred a criminal appeal against C.C.No.16 of 2009 of the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge for ACB Cases,
Visakhapatnam. He further submits that until the outcome of the criminal
1 AIR 1980 AP 132
appeal pending before this Court, it cannot be construed that the ACB case
against the petitioner herein is finalized, and the same has to be confirmed by
the ACB authorities/Government. Therefore, the regularization of the
Suspension Period as Duty from 25.03.2019 to 28.07.2010 as requested by
the petitioner cannot be considered in terms of the Government directions
issued in U.O.Note No.2715/SC.E3/98-9, GA (Ser.E) Department, dated
28.06.1999, wherein the Supreme Court decision in Raj Deo Sharma Vs.
State of Bihar, Appeals should be filed in the High Court and Special Leave
Petitions/Review Petitions should be filed in the Supreme Court. Pending
outcome of the Appeals/Special Leave Petitions/Review Petitions, no action to
revoke suspension or regularise the period of suspension to close the case or
to confer consequential reliefs etc. should be taken up. Therefore, learned
Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed to allow the writ petition
and prays to dismiss the same.
8. Perused the material on record.
9. On a perusal of the decision of this Court relied upon by the petitioner's
counsel in District Manager's case (supra.1), this Court observed that, the
order of suspension merges in an automatically ceases to be operative upon
the passing of the final order of acquittal in criminal proceedings. The effect of
such a merger would clearly revive the temporarily suspended rights of the
employee to get his full remuneration for the period of his suspension.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and on considering the
submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to
dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:
(i) The respondents are directed to treat the suspension period of the
petitioner as compulsory wait from 25.03.2009 to 28.07.2010 as on
duty.
(ii) The respondents are directed to pay all the consequential benefits to
the petitioner.
11. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J
BMS
