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 affording the employee an opportunity before passing any order.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned Memo No. 33518/Ser.II/A2/2012, Home Department, dated 24-05-2016 and its consequential Proceedings C.No. 33/A6-1/2008-2016, D.O.No. 1545/2016, dated 24-06-2016 issued by the 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, contrary to the Fundamental Rules and also subversive of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently hold that the suspension period of the applicant from 05-12-2007 to 07-03-2010 is to be treated as on duty for all the purposes with all consequential benefits including pay and allowances, seniority and promotion etc.

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

a) The petitioner was appointed as A.R. Police Constable with effect from 02-02-1992 and was later converted to Civil Police Constable during the year 2014 and since then continuing in the said post.

b) When the petitioner was working as AR Police Constable in Nalgonda, he was placed under suspension vide Proc. C.No. 3594/A6/2007, D.O.No. 2587/2007 of the 1st respondent on the ground that he was involved in Crime No. 268/2007 under Section 498 (A), 307 IPC of Nalgonda-II Town Police Station for subjecting his wife to cruelty by causing injuries with blade.

c) The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Miryalaguda was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 23.09.2008 and submitted report on 27.10.2009 vide Lr.No.04/OE/SDPO-M/2008 that charge was not proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case holding that the accused is found not guilty for the said offences.

d) The 1st Respondent without taking the report of the Enquiry Officer into consideration, has issued final orders dated 08-07-2010 vide proceedings C.No.33/A6-1/OE/2008, DO.NO 1459/2010 and imposed punishment of ‘PPI for one year with effect on future increments and pension’ and the period of suspension from 05-12-2007 to 07-03-2010 as ‘not on duty’. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the Government on 02.12.2011, requesting for setting aside the said punishment.

e) Government, vide G.O.Rt.No. 1670, set aside the punishment of ‘PPI for one year with effect’ imposed against the Petitioner. Since the petitioner was acquitted, he made representation to consider his suspension period as ‘on duty’, but the Government has issued Memo rejecting the plea of the petitioner without assigning any reasons.

f) In many other instances where S.I’s/Inspectors were caught red-handed in A.C.B cases, the Government has treated their suspension period as ‘On Duty’ soon after being acquitted in the said cases, duly following the provisions of Fundamental Rules of 54-B (4). In the case of Sri Mohd. Fazalur Rahaman, S.I. of Police, Hyderabad Range, who is now working as DSP, Telangana soon after his acquittal in a ACB case by the High Court, the Government has treated his suspension period including his dismissal period as ‘On Duty’ with all consequential benefits vide G.O.Rt.No. 234, Home, dated 23-02-2011.

g) The Government being the model employer cannot adopt differential yardsticks favouring few similarly situated persons and by rejecting the plea of the petitioner and the same is against the doctrine of equity, justice and fair play. Hence this Writ Petition.

4. The case of the respondents, in brief, is as follows:

a) The departmental inquiry and prosecution in a criminal case are two different and distinct aspects, as the criminal prosecution is charged for an offence while the departmental inquiry is for the criminal misconduct so as to maintain discipline in the department.

b) The Government is competent to settle the suspension period of the petitioner, and that the Superintendent is not competent to treat the suspension of the petitioner from 05.12.2007 to 07.03.2010 as on duty.