Telangana High Court

Shakeel Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 15 November, 2022

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

                  W.P. No. 17988 of 2020
Between:
Shakeel Ahmed                                       ... Petitioner
                             And

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal
Secretary and another
                                               ... Respondents

           JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 15.11.2022

     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA



1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers         :     yes
   may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?            :      yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
   see the fair copy of the Judgment?           :      yes




                                     ____________________
                                      SUREPALLI NANDA, J
                                                         WP_17988_2020
                               2                                 SN,J




     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                  W.P. No. 17988 of 2020
% 15.11.2022

Between:

# Shakeel Ahmed
                                                  ... Petitioner
                             And

$The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal
Secretary and another
                                            ... Respondents




< Gist:
> Head Note:



! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr R.Raja Sekhar Rao

^Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Labour




? Cases Referred:
                                                              WP_17988_2020
                                 3                                    SN,J




     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                   W.P. No. 17988 of 2020
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for Labour.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ more in the

nature of writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or

direction to declare the action of the 1st respondent treating

the suspension period of the petitioner not on duty vide G O

Ms. No.23, Labour, Employment Training and Factories (Emp-

Vig.) Department, dated 19.09.2020 as illegal, arbitrary,

unconstitutional and void being contrary to the FR 54-B and

set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents

to treat the suspension period from 20/06/1998 to

08/08/2001 as on duty for all purposes with all consequential

benefits.

3) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant

on compassionate grounds on 01.10.1984 at District

Employment Exchange (Technical), Hyderabad and promoted WP_17988_2020 4 SN,J

as Senior Assistant in the year 1992 and as Superintendent

on 08.08.2016.

b) The petitioner was placed under suspension by the 2nd

respondent on 20.06.1998 that a case was registered against

him under Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 34 of

IPC in Crime No.3/ACB.NZB/1998. In the said case, after full

fledged trial, the petitioner was acquitted on 14.10.2015.

Later reinstated into service on 04.08.2001 and posted at

Government ITI Boys, Nalgonda.

c) The petitioner made a representation on 19.01.2016 to

consider his case for promotion as Office Superintendent on

par with his juniors, but the same was not considered.

Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2023 of 2016 before the

erstwhile Tribunal.

d) The Tribunal, vide judgment dated 06.06.2016 directed

the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for

promotion on par with his juniors as per G.O.Ms.No.424,

dated 25.05.1976. As such the petitioner was considered for

promotion on 08.08.2016.

                                                             WP_17988_2020
                                 5                                   SN,J




e)      As the criminal appeal filed by the respondents against

the said criminal case was pending, the case of the petitioner

for promotion was not considered. The 2nd respondent passed

orders bearing No.G/M1/105/2016, dated 19.08.2016 that

necessary steps will be taken as per orders of the tribunal

soon after clarification is received from the Government to

treat the suspension period i.e. from 20.06.1998 to

08.08.2001 as on duty or not and to release all service

benefits.

f) Since the respondents did not take any steps to pass

orders, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25116 of 2019 directing

the respondents to treat the suspension period as on duty for

all purposes from 20.06.1998 to 08.08.2019 as per F.R.54-B

in view of acquittal in the trial Court. The erstwhile High

Court ordered the said writ petition on 15.11.2019 directing

the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner.

Hence, this writ petition is filed.

PREUSED THE RECORD :

4. Paras 4 to 7 of the order impugned in the present

Writ Petition i.e., G.O.Ms.No.23, dt. 19.09.2020 WP_17988_2020 6 SN,J

rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for treating the

period of suspension from 20.06.1998 to 08.08.2001 as

on duty for all purposes though the Petitioner is

acquitted in the criminal case is extracted hereunder :

Para 4 : In the reference 5th cited, the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad opined that there are grounds to file an appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad against the acquittal orders of the trial court in C.C.No.01/2013, dt. 14.10.2015. Accordingly, in the reference 6th cited, Government accorded permission to Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad to file an appeal in the Hon'ble High Court against the acquittal orders of the court in C.C.No.01/2013 dt. 14.10.2015.

Para 5 : In the reference 6th, the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.25116/2016 filed by Sri Shakeel Ahmed, Superintendent, Government Industrial Training Institute, Wanaparthy has ordered to consider the proposal submitted by the Director, Employment & Training, Telangana on 19.08.2016 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Para 6 : In the circumstances reported by the Director, Employment & Training in the ref. 9th and Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad in the ref. 5th, there are valid circumstances for suspension of the Accused Officer. Hence, the suspension period of Sri Shakeel Ahmed, former Junior Assistant-cum-Stores Incharge, Government Industrial Training Institute, Patancheru from 20.06.1998 to 08.08.2001 is treated as "Not on duty".

Para 7 : The Director of Employment and Training, Telangana, Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action in the matter.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION :

WP_17988_2020 7 SN,J

5. Facts not in dispute are that the petitioner was

placed under suspension pending enquiry vide

Proceedings No.N2/329/98, dated 18.06.1998 of the

Director of Employment and Training, Telangana,

Hyderabad alleging that the Petitioner committed grave

irregularities in purchase of raw materials, tools and

equipment in ITI, Patancheru. Later on the Petitioner

was reinstated into the service by the 1st respondent on

04.08.2001. The Petitioner was acquitted vide

judgment dated 14.10.2015 passed in C.C.No.1 of 2013

of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases,

City Courts, Hyderabad on merits after a full-fledged

trial. The Petitioner has been considered for promotion

as Office Superintendent on 08.08.2016.

6. A bare perusal of paras 4 to 7 of the order

impugned i.e., G.O.Ms.No.23, dt. 19.09.2020 extracted

above clearly indicates that the only reason for the 1st

Respondent for not passing orders treating the

suspension period as on duty for all purposes is that a

Criminal Appeal is being preferred against the trial

court judgment before the High Court and permission is WP_17988_2020 8 SN,J

accorded for filing the same. A bare perusal of the

impugned order dated 19.09.2020 of the 1st

Respondent clearly indicates that the 1st respondent

failed to pass a speaking order. It is settled principle of

law that mere filing of an appeal or pendency of appeal

is not a bar for passing orders on treating the

suspension period as on duty for all purposes.

7. Fundamental Rule 54-B reads as under :

F.R. 54-B. (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement (including premature retirement) while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order--

(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement (including premature retirement), as the case may be; and

(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.

8. The 1st respondent who is the Authority

Competent to act independently and to take decision

cannot act as per the advice of Anti Corruption Bureau.

                                                       WP_17988_2020
                              9                                SN,J

Admittedly, as borne on record the Petitioner had been

acquitted on 14.10.2015 and also promoted as Office

Superintendent on 08.08.2016 itself. 1st Respondent

failed to make a specific reasoned order as per

Fundamental Rule 54-B, extracted above.

9. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated

19.09.2020 also indicates that the petitioner had not

been afforded a reasonable opportunity or put on

notice nor a show cause notice is issued to the

petitioner calling for the petitioner's reply prior to

passing of the order impugned.

10. Taking into consideration the above referred facts

and circumstances the Writ Petition is allowed setting

aside the impugned G.O.Ms.No.23, Labour,

Employment, Training & Factories (Emp-Vig)

Department, dt. 19.09.2020 and the respondents are

directed to re-consider the decision of treating the