Telangana High Court
B. Seshagiri Rao vs The Govt. Of Telangana on 13 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Petition(Tr). No.2602 of 2017
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare that a) G.O.Ms.No.
338, dated 24.05.2012 to the extent of not treating the
period of suspension of the applicant from 04.11.1999 to
15.06.2000 and 04.04.2001 to 31.08.2003 and not paying
salaries to the applicant from 01.07.2005 to 24.05.2012 to
the applicant as illegal and arbitrary; b) declare that the
action of respondent in not promoting his as Tahsildar
from the date of promotion of his juniors, in pursuance of
his acquittal in Crl.A.No.205 of 2005 dated 27.01.2012 as
illegal and arbitrary; c) declare that applicant is entitled to
get his period of suspension from 04.11.1999 to
15.06.2000 and 04.04.2001 to 31.08.2003 be treated as
duty and also entitled for salaries from 01.07.2005 to
24.05.2012; d) applicant is entitled for notional promotion
as Tahsildar from 2006 from the date which his juniors
were promoted.
Brief Facts of the case:
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was working as Office Subordinate in the MRO
Office, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District. While he was
working, ACB Officials laid trap on the petitioner on
17.10.2000 and Crime was registered under Sections 7, 11,
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and the case was numbered as C.C.No.24 of
2000 on the file of Principal and Session Judge for SPE and
ACB Cases - IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad on the ground that the applicant has demanded
and accepted Rs.3,000/- from the defacto complainant.
3. The Principal and Sessions Judge for SPE and ACB
Cases cum IV Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad convicted the
petitioner vide judgment in C.C.No.24 of 2000 dated
15.02.2005 sentencing him to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and directed to
pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner
filed Crl.A.No.205 of 2005 before this Hon'ble Court. This
Court vide judgment dated 27.01.2012 allowed the said
criminal appeal by setting aside the judgment passed in
C.C.No.24 of 2000 dated 15.02.2005 consequently the
petitioner herein stood acquitted.
4. It is submitted that from 04.11.1999 to 15.06.2000
and again from 04.04.2001 to 31.08.2003, the petitioner
was kept under suspension on the ground that he was
convicted by the Criminal Court, subsequently, applicant
was dismissed from service w.e.f 15.07.2005 vide
G.O.Ms.No.1292 dated 01.07.2005. Thereafter, the
petitioner challenged the dismissal order before the
Tribunal in O.A.No.3911 of 2006. The Tribunal vide order
dated 12.02.2008 directed the respondents to reinduct the
applicant forthwith. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed
questioning the O.A.No.3911 of 2006 vide W.P.No.18265 of
2009, this Court vide order dated 02.09.2009 suspended
the judgment of the Tribunal and writ petition was allowed
thereafter on 03.08.2022.
5. Thereafter, the applicant made a representation to
respondent on 11.04.2012 requesting to reinstate him into
service in view of his acquittal in Crl.A.No.205 of 2005 vide
judgment dated 27.01.2012 and to reinduct him into
service and regularize his suspension period as on duty as
he is due for retirement on 30.09.2012. Thereafter,
Government accordingly issued G.O.Ms.No.338 dated
25.04.2012 reinstating the petitioner into service. However,
the Government decided not to treat the period of
suspension and dismissal not on duty but the said period
shall count for the purpose of national increment, pay
fixation, leave, qualifying service for promotion. He would
further submit that he was reinstated into service on
24.05.2012 and was retired from service on 30.09.2012.
6. Petitioner would further submit that the judgment
of the ACB Court in C.C.No.24 of 2000 was set aside by
this Court and he was honourably acquitted by this Court.
In view of his acquittal from the criminal case, he is
entitled to get his period of suspension from 04.11.1999 to
15.06.2000 and 04.04.2001 to 31.08.2003 as regularized
and entitled for consequential benefits. It is further
submitted that the petitioner was not promoted as
Tahsildar because he was illegally dismissed from service
and in view of the acquittal in Criminal Case, petitioner is
also entitled for notional promotion as Tahsildar and also
entitled for fixation of pay.
7. In view of the above circumstances, action of the
respondents in not treating the period of suspension as on
duty vide G.O.Ms.No.338 dated 24.05.2012 is being
questioned in the present writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of
his contentions, has relied on F.R.54-A(2)(ii) which states
that the period intervening between the date of dismissal,
removal or compulsory retirement including the period of
suspension preceding dismissal and the date of judgment
of the Court shall be regularised in accordance with the
provisions contained in sub-rule (5) of Rule 54. The
relevant portion of the Rule is is extracted hereunder:
"54(A)(2)(i)...
(ii) The period intervening between the
date of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement including the period of suspension
preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement, as the case may be, and the date of
judgment of the court shall be regularised in
accordance with the provisions contained in sub-
rule (5) of rule 54."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
case has relied on G.O.Rt.No.2171 dated 19.06.2015
wherein one N.Mallaiah, Sub-Treasury Officer (Retd.,) who
was acquitted in C.C.No.12 of 2000 in Crl.A.No.69 of 2006
by the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh and
Government after careful examination of the matter has
considered the suspension period as "On duty" under
Fundamental Rule 54(3) of Andhra Pradesh Fundamental
Rules and Subsiding Rules. The relevant portion of the said
Government Order is extracted herein:
"7. After careful examination of the matter,
Government hereby order to drop further action
against Sri N.Mallaiah, Khammam District on
his acquittal in C.C.No.12/2000 in the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in
Crl.A.No.69/2006 and the suspension period
treated as "On Duty" i.e., 05.07.1999 to
05.02.2002 and 21.03.2006 to 30.04.2006 (upto
superannuation) under FR 54(3) of A.P.
Fundamental Rules and Subsiding Rules."
10. Heard Mr.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for
Services-II. Perused the record. No counter affidavit has
been filed, even though several opportunities were given.
11. In view of all the above observations and on
perusal of G.O.Rt.No.2171 dated 19.06.2015, this Court
deems it proper that the petitioner herein is also entitled
for the same relief as granted to one Mr.N.Mallaiah vide
G.O.Rt.No.2171. The Division Bench of this Court allowed
the writ petition in W.P.No.18265 of 2009 filed by the
petitioner herein for setting aside the O.A.No.3911 of 2006
dated 12.02.2008. However, liberty was granted to the
respondent therein to pursue his remedies in accordance
with law, if he is acquitted in the criminal appeal.
12. In the case on hand, admittedly the petitioner
was acquitted in Crl.A.No.69 of 2006. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed the present writ petition and the
respondents have not filed counter affidavit bringing forth
the details of subsequent events. A careful examination of
the said G.O.Ms.No.338 dated 24.05.2012 issued by
Principal Secretary to Government/respondent No.1
reveals that since there is alleged involvement of the
petitioner in the criminal case, the dismissal/suspension of
the petitioner cannot be treated as "wholly unjustified". It
is pertinent to note that even after the petitioner was
acquitted in Crl.A.No.205 of 2005, there are no justifiable
reasons for treating the period of suspension and dismissal
as "not on duty". The respondents ought to have
considered the suspension period and the period between
the date of dismissal and the date on which the petitioner
was acquitted as "on duty". As such the G.O.Ms.No.338
dated 24.05.2012 is not sustainable to the extent of
treating the suspension and dismissal periods of petitioner
as "not on duty".
13. For the foregoing reasons cited above, this writ
petition is disposed of by setting aside G.O.Ms.No.338
dated 24.05.2020 to the extent of not treating the period of
suspension of the petitioner from 04.11.1999 to
15.06.2000 and 04.04.2001 to 31.08.2003 and the
intervening period between the date of dismissal i.e.,
15.07.2005 till the date of judgment in Crl.A.No.205 of
2005 dated 27.01.2012 as "on duty". The respondent
authorities are directed to treat the above said period of the
petitioner as "On Duty" in terms of Fundamental Rule 54-
A(2)(ii) and the said period shall count for the purpose of
notional increments, pay fixation, leave, qualifying service
for promotion etc.
14. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with
the above directions.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
13.02.2024
mrm
