The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, vs P.Venkataramana,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4811 Tel

  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                      AND
         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

                            W.P.No. 6881 of 2013

ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


        This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders of the

A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity 'the

Tribunal') passed in O.A.No.10099 of 2009 dt.04-04-2012.


        2.      Heard the learned Additional Advocate General for

the petitioners and Sri P.Amarender, learned counsel for the

respondent.

3. It has been contended by the petitioners that the

respondent is a retired Mandal Parishad Development Officer and

the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities have raided against him on

13-07-1994 and a Criminal Case was registered against the

respondent in C.C.No.13 of 1995 and based upon the fact that the

respondent was involved in a criminal case, the petitioners have

placed the respondent under suspension on 23-07-1994 and he

was continued under suspension till 27-04-1997. Thereafter, the

respondent was convicted in C.C.No.13 of 1995 by the competent AKS,J & SK,J

Court vide orders dt.17-12-1999. Thereafter, the respondent has

preferred Crl.A.No.2003 of 1999 before this Court and this Court

was pleased to allow the Criminal Appeal and was pleased to set

aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent vide orders

dt.09-09-2005. Thereafter, the respondent has submitted an

application to the petitioners to treat the suspension period as

'spent on duty' and the petitioners have considered the same and

the same was rejected vide G.O.Ms.No.427 dt.14-09-2007 and

consequential proceedings dt.10-07-2009. Aggrieved by the

same, the respondent has filed O.A.No.10099 of 2009 and the

Tribunal vide orders dt.04-04-2012, without appreciating any of

the contentions raised by the petitioners, was pleased to allow the

O.A. directing the petitioners to treat the suspension period as

'spent on duty'. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the

Writ Petition by setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and allow

the Writ Petition.

4. This Court having considered the submissions made

by the learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioners is

of the considered view that no disciplinary proceedings were AKS,J & SK,J

initiated against the respondent but the petitioners have placed the

respondent under suspension based on the ground that the

criminal case is pending against him. When once the respondent

was acquitted in Criminal Case vide judgment of the

Crl.A.No.2003 of 1999 passed by the High Court vide orders

dt.09-09-2005, the respondent is entitled to treat the entire period

of suspension as 'spent on duty'. Therefore, the Tribunal justified

in allowing the O.A. and therefore we are not inclined to interfere

with the orders of the Tribunal.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No

costs.

6. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

_____________________________ K. SARATH, J Dt.21.09.2022 kvr