Telangana High Court
Av.S.Prasad vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 24 March, 2023
Bench: E.V. Venugopal
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No. 4703 of 2020
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-
''... to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the
inaction of respondents to call for records declaring the
impugned orders Memo No.12886/Ex.I(1)/2018, dated
10.06.2019 of the 1st respondent and as illegal, arbitrary,
erroneous and contrary to the records, unjust and
violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to
Rule FR 54-A(3) of the APFRSR Rules apart from violation
of Articles 300-A of the Constitution of India and to quash
or set-aside the same and consequently direct the
respondents to regularizing my suspension period from
25.09.2008 to 24.11.2010 as on duty with all
consequential benefits, i.e., arrears of salary and
increments applying principle of compulsory wait and to
grant such other relief or reliefs ...''
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the ACB authorities
registered a case against him for the offences under
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was
suspended and later reinstated into service on 25.11.2011.
The petitioner was acquitted by the learned Principle Special
Judge SPE & ACB Court, Hyderabad in C.C.No.7 of 2010 vide
judgment dated 08.12.2014. The ACB authorities preferred an
Appeal vide Crl.A.No.730 of 2016 before this Court and the
same is pending. The petitioner made a representation to the
Government for regularization of suspension period but the
Government rejected the same and observed that as per FR
54-A (3), ''back wages to be suspended/dismissed employee
cannot be paid as a matter of course in cases where the
employee has been acquitted by the Courts on benefit of
doubt''. But as per Rule 54-B(1) 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.
4. The petitioner made several representations dated
17.01.2018, 18.04.2018, 21.08.2018 and 11.09.2018 to
respondent No.1. But in vain. The petitioner filed C.C.No.2790
of 2018 on 04.10.2018. After receiving notices in Contempt
Case, respondent No.1 released provisional pension as per
G.O.Rt.No.150, dated 29.03.2018 but denied full pension to
the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
5. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that,
challenging the acquittal of the petitioner, an Appeal was
preferred by the ACB and the same is pending adjudication
before this Court. It is further submitted that in compliance of
the interim order dated 08.12.2016 in W.P.No.42496 of 2016,
respondent No.1 vide Memo dated 19.09.2017 rejected the
request of the petitioner for regularization of the suspension
period from 25.09.2008 to 24.11.2010. It is submitted that on
attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired
from service on 31.08.2017. The petitioner filed W.P.No.8827
of 2018 seeking release of full pension and other benefits and
by Order dated 02.04.2018 in W.P.No.8827 of 2018 and as
per Orders in C.C.No.2790 of 2018 dated 04.10.2018,
Government vide G.O.Rt.No.44, Rev (Vig.II) Department.,
dated 07.02.2019 released full pension and other benefits
subject to final outcome of the Criminal Appeal No.730 of
2016 pending before this Court.
7. It is further contended that the petitioner filed
W.P.No.22325 of 2018 seeking a direction to the respondents
to consider his representation dated 28.05.2018 in which he
sought regularization of suspension period from 25.09.2008
to 24.11.2010 and notional promotion on par with his junior
in the category of Prohibition & Excise Inspector from
06.12.2006. In compliance of the orders of this Court,
respondent No.1 vide Memo dated 10.06.2019 examined and
rejected the request of the petitioner holding that the rejection
orders vide Memo dated 19.09.2017 stands good. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has been sanctioned full
pension and other benefits vide orders of the 1st respondent in
G.O.Rt.No.44, Rev.(Vig.II) Department., dated 07.02.2019
subject to final outcome of the Criminal Appeal No.730 of
2016 pending before this Court.
8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the decisions of this Court in
''Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. S.
Nageswara Rao and others1'' and ''State of Andhra
Pradesh and another Vs. Krishna Murthy2''
9. The whole issue germinates from the fact that the writ
petitioner is involved in a criminal case and since the
criminal case is pending and without adjudication of the said
criminal case passing on the benefits as sought for by the
writ petitioner at this juncture will not secure the interests of
the State. Unless and until the criminal case is disposed of in
favour of the petitioner, regularizing the suspension period of
the writ petitioner from 25.09.2008 to 24.11.2010 as on duty
with all consequential benefits at this juncture is devoid of
merits.
10. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the
case of the petitioner basing on the decision rendered in the
criminal appeal.
11. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
Date: 24.03.2023
ESP
2012 (1) ALD 26 (DB)
2018 (4) ALD 477 (DB)
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
W.P.No.4703 of 2020
Dated: 24.03.2023
ESP
