Miryala Lakshmaiah, Khammam ... vs The Divisional Engineer ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5428 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                         AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                 WRIT PETITION No.13843 of 2002

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


        Heard Mr. M.Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. R.Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the

respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for

quashing of the order dated 22.12.2000 issued by

respondent No.1 treating the period of suspension of the

petitioner from 07.10.1994 to 18.05.2000 as on leave and

for a further direction to the respondents to treat the said

period as on duty. Petitioner seeks consequential reliefs as

well.

3. While the petitioner was serving as Assistant

Lineman in the establishment of Assistant Divisional

Engineer (Operations), Sattupally in Khammam District, he

was placed under suspension with effect from 07.10.1994

on the ground that he was an accused in crime No.155/94

of Sattupally Police Station registered under Sections 302

and 202 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

4. Subsequently, on completion of investigation, police

submitted charge sheet on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sattupally. The case was

committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge at

Khammam, whereafter it was registered as S.C.No.66 of

1995. Criminal Court by the judgment and order dated

14.03.2000 acquitted the petitioner of the charges framed

against him holding him not guilty. Thereafter, respondent

No.1 vide proceedings dated 16.05.2000 reinstated the

petitioner in service. On such reinstatement, petitioner

joined on 19.05.2000 and continued his service. Of course,

now by lapse of time, he has superannuated from service.

5. Grievance of the petitioner pertains to the suspension

period from 07.10.1994 to 18.05.2000. Petitioner

approached the authorities for regularising the said period.

However, by the order dated 22.12.2000, the request was

turned down by treating the said period as on leave.

6. The writ petition was filed in the year 2002. Twenty

years have gone by since then. Respondents have not

bothered to file any counter affidavit. As a result,

averments made and contentions urged by the petitioner in

the writ affidavit have remained uncontroverted.

7. Petitioner's suspension was on account of his alleged

involvement in a criminal offence. The suspension

continued throughout the period of trial. Ultimately,

petitioner was acquitted by the criminal Court following

which petitioner was reinstated in service.

8. Considering the above situation, we are of the view

that respondents were not justified in treating the entire

period of suspension as on leave, thereby denying any

consequential benefit, including retirement benefit, to the

petitioner for the aforesaid period.

9. F.R.54-B deals with a case of reinstatement of a

Government servant after withdrawal of suspension order.

Sub-rule (1) thereof says that when a Government servant

who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been

so reinstated but for his 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 on

superannuation, as the case may be; and b) whether or not

the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.

10. Insofar the order dated 22.12.2000 is concerned, we

find that respondent No.1 had held that the period from

07.10.1994 to 18.05.2000 should be treated as on leave

limiting the pay and allowances to the subsistence

allowance already paid. Referring to the request of the

petitioner that he had requested for regularisation of the

suspension period as a period spent on duty in view of his

acquittal by the criminal Court without applying for leave,

respondent No.1 regularised the said period as on leave

limiting the pay and allowances to the subsistence

allowance already paid.

11. We are afraid, respondent No.1 did not consider the

outcome in the criminal case which was the sole reason for

placing the petitioner under suspension for a long period.

During this entire period no departmental proceeding was

initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, it was wrong on

the part of the respondents in construing the suspension

period as a period spent on leave.

12. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 22.12.2000

and direct the respondents to treat the suspension period

i.e., from 07.10.1994 to 18.05.2000 as a period spent on

duty by the petitioner. Consequently, petitioner would be

entitled to his pay and allowances for the said period

minus the subsistence allowance granted to him. This

period shall also be taken into account while computing

pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

13. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 28.10.2022 vs