Point of Law: Fundamental Rule 54-A(3) clearly stipulates that if the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on merits of the case.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. This Court vide its order dated 28.04.2022 was pleased to order W.P.M.P. No. 28578 of 2017 in W.P. No. 573 of 2017. As per the amended prayer, the prayer of the petitioner in the present writ petition is as follows:

“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in treating the out of employment period from 10.09.2013 to till date as Extra Ordinary Leave and thereafter, as not on duty vide impugned proceedings issued in D.O. No. 4898 (No. L&O/B8/1432/2001) dated 07.05.2016, Rc. No. 148/T2/2016, dated 16.10.2016 and D.O. No. 13020 dated 31.12.2016 though the order of removal was set aside by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad with a direction to extend all consequential benefits and confirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 22451 of 2014 dated 07.01.2016 and further denying increments which fell due from 2014 onwards and promotion, as being arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to have the out of employment period regularized as on duty for all purposes including arrears of pay and allowances, increments, promotion on par with his juniors etc.”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The petitioner while working as Police Constable at Chilkalguda P.S. he was dismissed from service vide orders dated 07.07.2001 invoking the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India citing involvement in Crime No. 288 of 2001 and Crime No. 440 of 2001.

(b) The same was set aside by the Tribunal by an order dated 30.11.2001 giving liberty to take disciplinary action in accordance with law and accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into duty on 16.02.2002. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in both the criminal cases on 16.10.2003 and 29.09.2004 respectively.

(c) In respect of the very same incidents, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide charge memo dated 20.05.2008 and the same was culminated in the imposition of the penalty of removal vide proceedings dated 10.09.2013 issued by the 3rd respondent and the appeal preferred was rejected vide proceedings dated 14.12.2013 by the 2nd respondent.

(d) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has instituted O.A. No. 6991 of 2013 before the Tribunal and the said O.A. was allowed vide order dated 18.03.2014 duly setting aside the order of removal with a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all consequential benefits.

(e) As the respondents were not implementing the said O.A. order, the petitioner filed Contempt Application. Subsequent to filing of the said Contempt Application, the respondents filed W.P. No. 20416 of 2014. In the said writ petition, the High Court granted interim order on 17.11.2014. The said writ petition was dismissed on 07.01.2016 affirming the order passed by the Tribunal.

(f) The petitioner was reinstated into service on 07.05.2016. The suspension period from 07.07.2001 to 18.02.2002 was treated on duty, but out of employment period from 10.09.2013 to 07.05.2013 has been treated as “Extra Ordinary Leave.” Hence, this writ petition.

4. The respondents filed counter, in brief, is as follows:

(a) In obedience of the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service with all consequential benefits treating the out of employment as ‘extra ordinary leave’ but not as ‘not on duty’ since they did not do duty as contended by the petitioner.

(b) The delay of 4 months to reinstate the petitioner is purely an administrative delay occurred during the official correspondence and the respondent cannot be held responsible for the same.

(c) The petitioner submitted a representation on 12.07.2016 to the 2nd respondent to treat the perio