The State Of Telangana vs K. Durga Prasad
2021 Latest Caselaw 3826 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                      AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY


                  WRIT APPEAL No.873 of 2019

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




     The present writ appal is arising out of order dated

11.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.8313 of 2019 by the learned

Single Judge.

     The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

respondent/employee was working as Junior Assistant and at

a relevant point of time, he was placed under suspension vide

order dated 05.10.2006 alleging misappropriation of funds.

An enquiry officer was appointed and the order passed by the

learned Single Judge reveals that charges against the

employee are not proved. The disciplinary authority passed

an order dropping the charges. Meaning thereby, closing the

enquiry without awarding any punishment and therefore, he

was given a clean chit by the employer.                             The employee

submitted a representation for regularisation of the period of

suspension i.e., from 11.10.2006 to 05.06.2008 and for

treating the period as on duty. However, the representation

of the employee was rejected by order dated 30.03.2017

stating that the individual has not been fully exonerated of

the charges. The said order is reproduced as under:
                                      2



       "OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND
               FAMILY WELFARE TS. HYDEABAD

     Rc.No.A1/1348/2007-17                               Dt.30.03.2017

            Sub:- Estt - Ms. Sri. K. Durga Prasad, Sr. Asst (Retired)
                  PHC Inugurthy Mahabubabad District - Requsting
                  for regularization of suspension period as on duty -
                  Non-entitled - Suspension period treated as Leave -
                  Orders - Issued.

            Ref:- 1.       Representation of the individual dated
                           01.02.2017 forwarded by the DM&HO
                           Mahabubabad vide Rc.No.E1/140/217, dt.
                           07.02.2017.

                   2.      Note orders of the Director of PH & FW,
                           TS, Hyderabad, dt. 25.02.2017.

                                 ********

Whereas Sri K. Durga Prasad Senior Assistant PHC Inugurthy Mahabubabad District has made a representation vide reference 1st cited, to regularize tyhe suspension period from 11.10.2006 to 05.06.2008 as on duty.

After careful examination of the matter under F.R.54 (B) as the individual has not been fully exonerated of the charges, he is not entitled to treat the suspension period as on duty.

Hence, the suspension period from 1.10.2006 to 05.06.2008 is hereby regularized as eligible leave, further, the individual is instructed to submit the proposal along with service register to regularize the period as leave whichever is eligible.

Sd/- Dr. Y. Lalitha Kumar, Director of PH & FW, TS, Hyderabad."

The aforesaid order was subjected to judicial scrutiny

and the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition

directing the State to treat the period from 11.10.2006 to

05.06.2008 as spent on duty and release all consequential

benefits against which the State Government has preferred

the present appeal.

This Court really fails to understand as to how the

respondent/employee has not fully exonerated. The

disciplinary authority in its wisdom decided to drop the

enquiry. The enquiry was closed and the charges are

dropped, as reflected in order dated 21.01.2017 and now the

same disciplinary authority says that in the matter of

regularising the suspension period the employee has not been

fully exonerated.

In the considered opinion of this Court, already as the

charges were dropped, the learned Single Judge was justified,

keeping in view F.R. 54(B), in allowing the writ petition and

directing respondent No.1 to treat the suspension period as

on duty. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with

the order passed by the learned Single Judge. If the order

passed by the learned Single Judge has not been complied

with, the same shall be complied with within a period of 30

days from today.

Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

29.11.2021 ES