Telangana High Court
A.Satyanarayana vs The Chief Executive Officer on 17 October, 2024
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
I.A.No.1 of 2024
in/and
WRIT PETITION (TR) No.1173 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction
to the respondents to treat the suspension period of the
petitioner from 03.06.2005 to 10.05.2006 i.e., from the date of
suspension to the date of reinstatement into service as on duty
in terms of Fundamental Rules with all consequential benefits.
2. Heard Sri Mukkaram Khan, learned counsel
representing Sri Bala Kishan Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services
and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
Perused the material placed on record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
based on the criminal complaint lodged under Section 498-A
IPC, the petitioner vide Proceeding bearing No.A2/886/2005,
dated 31.05.2005 was placed under suspension on
03.06.2005 and challenging the suspension order, petitioner
filed O.A.No.2270 of 2006 before the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal) and the
Tribunal, vide orders dated 24.04.2006, suspended the orders
of suspension and the petitioner was accordingly reinstated
into service and he joined the duty on 11.05.2006. It is
submitted that thereafter, the Tribunal, vide order dated
21.10.2009, closed the said OA, observing that no further
orders are necessary in view of the reinstatement of the
petitioner into service. In the meantime, the petitioner was
acquitted from the criminal charges vide judgment dated
10.02.2012 and therefore, the petitioner has made
representation dated 28.05.2013 to regularize his period of
suspension as 'on duty'.
4. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 has issued a
Memo No.A2/1070/2013 dated 16.09.2013, rejecting the case
of the petitioner and aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed
O.A.No.8259 of 2013 before the Tribunal and after abolish of
the Tribunal, the said OA was transferred to High Court and
numbered as writ petition (TR) No.1173 of 2017.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of
2024, seeking direction to respondents to treat the suspension
period of the petitioner from 03.06.2005 to 10.05.2006 as on
duty in terms of F.R.54-B (iii) of the Fundamental Rules and
also in terms of the law on the subject with all consequential
benefits.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
suspension period of the petitioner was not so far treated as
'on duty' in terms of Rule FR 54-B and Sub-Rule (3)
thereunder, which provides that when an employee has been
acquitted honorably, he is entitled for all benefits including
treating the suspension period as 'on duty' and that it is well
established principle of law that when the criminal case ends
in acquittal, the employee is entitled to succeed in the
departmental enquiry as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
GM Tank Vs.State of Gujarath 1.
(2006) 5 SCC 446
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charges and in such
circumstances the respondents are duty bound to treat the
suspension period as 'on duty' in terms of FR 54-B (iii) of the
Fundamental Rules. He therefore prayed for setting aside of
the impugned Proceedings dated 16.09.2013 and 24.12.2013
and a direction to the respondents to treat the suspension
period of the petititoner from 03.06.2005 to 10.05.2006 as 'on
duty' and to grant all consequential benefits.
8. As it appears that the respondents have already
considered the request of the petitioner and have rejected the
same by invoking Rule 54 (B) (7). However, this Court finds
that the case ought to have been considered under Rule 54-B
(iii) of the Fundamental Rules.
9. In view thereof, the impugned orders dated 16.09.2013
and 24.12.2013 are hereby set aside and this Court deems it
fit and proper to dispose of this writ petition with a direction
to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner under
the Rule 54-B (iii) of the Fundamental Rules and to pass
appropriate orders within a period of two (02) months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order and the petitioner shall
be granted all consequential benefits.
10. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed
of and I.A.No.1 of 2024 is allowed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 17.10.2024
SU
