Important Point—In Government service conduct of employee is relevant.

At the relevant point of time, petitioner was working as Warden cum Crafts Teacher in Government Residential School for Visually Handicapped at Karimnagar. By proceedings dated 26.1.2010 petitioner was suspended on the ground of his involvement in Crime No. 25/2010 under Section 376 (b) of IPC, Karimnagar II Town Police Station. He was served with charge memo dated 4.12.2010. The sum and substance of the allegation in the charge memo is that he committed the offence of rape on a minor visually handicapped student studying in 9th class by taking the student to his house. Domestic enquiry was conducted into the said allegation. Enquiry officer submitted his report. One of the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is that delinquent officer has taken the student out of the school premises to his house. While taking note of this finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority held that since petitioner was acquitted in criminal case and the major charge is not proved in the domestic enquiry also, he be awarded with only punishment of censure and accordingly the said punishment was imposed. Consequently the period of suspension from 25.1.2010 to 2.9.2012 was treated as Not on duty. To complete the narration, suspension of the petitioner was revoked from 2.9.2012. Criminal case launched against the petitioner ended in acquittal as the main complainant and the victim turned hostile. Petitioner filed O.A No. 7947 of 2013 before A.P. Administrative Tribunal challenging the order imposing the punishment of censure and consequently treating the period of suspension as not on duty, transferred to this Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that on the same set of allegations, criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner and in the criminal proceedings petitioner was honourably acquitted; consequent to the acquittal even if there is a finding against the petitioner in the domestic enquiry, the consequential proceedings initiated cannot be sustained As the criminal Court held petitioner not guilty of committing offence of rape on the girl student, based on which allegation, the disciplinary action was initiated, the punishment of censure and treating the period of suspension as not on duty, is ex facie illegal.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Brahma Chandra Gupta Vs. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 380, judgment of Full Court of this Court in The District Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bhimavaram Vs. Labour Court, Guntur and another AIR 1980 AP 132 and judgment of single Judge of this Court in A.V. Vinod Kumar Vs. Executive Committee of the Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi and another 2007 (5) ALD 445.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submits that in the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding against the petitioner in so far as taking the girl child out of the school premises. Taking the girl student out of the school premises is wholly illegal. Thus, even if the allegation of rape is not proved, the fact that the petitioner has taken out visually impaired girl student out of the school premises is sufficient to take disciplinary action, and therefore punishment imposed is valid. He would further submit that once disciplinary action ended in imposing punishment, period of suspension cannot be claimed as regular service and there is no illegality committed by the Disciplinary Authority in treating the suspension period as Not on duty.

6. Basic facts are not in dispute. The disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal prosecution were launched against the petitioner on the allegation of taking the visually impaired minor child out of the school premises and committing rape on said student. On the issue of committing rape, the petitioner was acquitted by the competent criminal Court. T