Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J.
M. Bullaiah – Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10570 of 2023
Decided On : 19-07-2024
(A) Fundamental Rules - Rule 54-B - Suspension of Government servant - Petitioner was suspended and later acquitted in a criminal case - The court held that the period of suspension must be treated as on duty with full pay and allowances as the disciplinary proceedings resulted in a minor penalty - The authority failed to regulate the suspension period as mandated by law. (Paras 10, 11, 19)
(B) Acquittal - Effect of acquittal on suspension - The court emphasized that upon acquittal, the suspension period should be treated as on duty, especially when the disciplinary action resulted in a minor penalty. (Paras 11, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was suspended during a criminal investigation, later acquitted, and sought to have the suspension period recognized as on duty for pay and allowances.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent authority failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of FR 54-B regarding the treatment of the suspension period.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's service can be regulated as on duty following acquittal from criminal charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the suspension period must be treated as on duty when the disciplinary proceedings result in a minor penalty, and the authority is required to make a specific order regarding pay and allowances upon reinstatement.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J.
1. This writ petition is filed to declare Memo No. 6841/Vig-I/A2/2009-23, dated 25.03.2021, issued by the 1st respondent treating the suspension period of the petitioner as ‘not on duty’ as illegal and arbitrary and, consequently, to direct the respondents to regularize the suspension period of the petitioner from 23.03.2009 to 20.04.2010 as ‘on duty’ with full pay and other allowances in terms of the proviso of sub-rule (5) of Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer vide proceedings No. RC/ENC/D.4/48687/85-390 dated 21.12.1985 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, AW, Hyderabad, and he reported to duty on 23.01.1986. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer and later retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2021.
3. While the petitioner was working as Deputy Executive Engineer, Special Minor Irrigation Division, Polavaram, West Godavari District, ACB trap was registered against him. The petitioner was arrested on 23.03.2009 and kept under suspension. The petitioner was reinstated into service vide G.O.Rt. No. 312, I&CAD [IW: Services-VI(I)] Department, 20.03.2010, without prejudice to the ACB case/disciplinary case pending against him. The 1st respondent, vide G.O.Rt. No. 311, Irrigation & CAD [Services-VI(I)] Department, dated 20.03.2010, issued articles of charges. Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence with a request to drop the charges on sympathetic grounds. On 17.03.2011, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that charges are proved. The 1st respondent, vide G.O.Rt. No. 23, Irrigation & CAD [IW: Services-VI(I)] Department, dated 14.02.2012, has imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect subject to review on the outcome of criminal proceedings.
4. Questioning the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has preferred a review petition. The 1st respondent, vide G.O.Rt. No. 836, Irrigation & CAD [IW: Services-VI(I)] Department, dated 26.07.2012, modified the earlier orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 23, dated 14.02.2012, by altering the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect into minor penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect.
5. On acquittal in C.C. No. 46 of 2018, dated 28.10.2019, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB cases, Rajahmahendravaram, the petitioner made a representation dated 09.01.2020 to the 1st respondent seeking to regularize his suspension period, i.e. from 23.03.2009 to 24.04.2010 as on duty, in accordance with FR 54-B (5) by enclosing a copy of the judgment as he is entitled to full arrears of salary for the suspension period and also entitled for pensionary benefits and revised retiral benefits. The 1st respondent, without considering his representation, has issued the impugned proceedings dated 25.03.2021. Questioning the said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed.
6. Heard, Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.K. Naidu, learned Government pleader for Services III, appearing for the respondents.
7. The petitioner contends that after acquittal in C.C. No. 46 of 2018, he made a representation to the 1st respondent to treat the suspension period from 23.03.2009 to 20.04.2010 as on duty by enclosing the judgment in C.C. No. 46 of 2018. The 1st respondent being the competent authority without deciding the eligibility, has rejected the case of the petitioner and treated the gap period as ‘not on duty’ by referring to the provision under FR.54-B (5) and (7).
8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for services-III opposed the contentions of the petitioner and would submit that the ACB authorities have preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court vide Crl. Appeal (SR) No. 1445 of 2021, which is pending before this Court for adjudication, and the Governm
The court ruled that a government servant's suspension period must be treated as on duty with full pay if acquitted of charges and if disciplinary proceedings result in a minor penalty.
The duty of the competent authority to consider and pass specific orders regarding pay, allowances, and the treatment of the suspension period as duty, and the principles of natural justice in afford....
An acquittal does not automatically dictate salary payment during suspension; the competent authority must evaluate if the suspension was wholly unjustified.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules and the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority in justifying a suspension and determining e....
Point of Law : It is settled principle of law that mere filing of an appeal or pendency of appeal is not a bar for passing orders on treating suspension period as on duty for all purposes.
An acquitted employee is entitled to have their suspension period treated as on duty, and authorities must provide reasoned orders in compliance with natural justice.
The competent authority has the power to grant full pay and allowances for the period of suspension if it is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified.
Suspension from service - Allowances - Time passed on leave of all kinds with allowances shall not count as qualifying service, except the period of Leave Without Allowances availed of under Rule 88,....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
