ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned G.O.Rt.No.578, Home, dated 12.05.2014 in so far as treating the suspension period as not on duty is concerned and the connected Govt. Memo No.1493/Ser.II/A1/2014, Home Department, dated 05.11.2014, in so far as the petitioner is concerned as being illegal, arbitrary 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 petitioner from 15.07.2008 to 04.03.2009 is to be treated as on duty for all purposes with all consequential benefits.

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

a) The petitioner was appointed as Civil Police Constable w.e.f. 15.08.1993. The petitioner was placed under suspension while working at Vijayapuri P.S., Nalgonda District by proceedings R.O.No.775/2008, dated 14.07.2008 issued by the 1st respondent on the ground that gross reprehensible misconduct in demanding bribe of Rs.20,000/- and accepting an amount of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification from Sri Shaik Baji Baba, owner-cum-driver of lorry No.AP16 x 6937 through PC 2187 Ram Prasad for providing him vehicle and case documents in an accident case in Cr.No.44 of 2008 under Section 304 A and 337 IPC of Vijayapuri Town P.S.

b) The enquiry officer was appointed and submitted report on 15.04.2011 holding that the charge is not proved. Though the Government passed G.O.Rt.No.578, dated 12.05.2014 dropping further action, but treated the period of suspension as not on duty, which is highly arbitrary and unjust. The Government considered several cases of other Sis/Inspectors, who were red-handedly trapped by ACB and treated their suspension period as on duty soon after their acquittal. Therefore, this writ petition is filed.

4. The counter filed by the 3rd respondent, in brief, is as follows:

a) The 2nd respondent forwarded the entire OE records to the Director General of Police, Hyderabad for onward transmission to Government since the charge attracts in vigilance angle and also one of the Charged Officer i.e. Sri M.Ramnarsaiah, SI of Police retired from service on superannuation pension w.e.f. 31.08.2009. b) As per the instruction issued, vide Govt. Memo No.34911/Ser.II/A3/2011, dated 22.05.2013 communicated through Chief Office Endt.No.4126/Appeal-1/2011, dated 21.06.2013 the 4th respondent issued directions to issue dissenting note to the petitioner and .Ramnarsaiah, SI of police (Retired) under Rule 21(2) APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and indicated the charges are held proved and then refer the issue with further explanation of the Charged Officers to Government for finalizing the case under Rule 9 of AP Revised Rules, 1980. c) The Government after careful examination of the matter with reference to records made available and the explanations of the petitioner and Sri M.Ramnarsaiah, SI of Police (Retired) with reference to the dissent note, have noticed that there is substance in the explanations of the delinquents and the charge is rightly held ‘not proved’ by the enquiry officer. Therefore, further action is dropped against the petitioner and Sri M.Ramnarsaiah, SI of Police (Retired) of Nalgonda District and the suspension period from 15.07.2008 to 04.03.2009 was treated as ‘not on duty’ vide G.O.Rt.No.578 Home (Services-II) department, dated 12.05.2014. d) As per FR 54-B(3) if the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government Servant shall subject to the provisions of Sub rule 8, be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled. But, in this case the suspension was not wholly unjustified and the petitioner was involved in serious case of demand and acceptance of bribe which was recorded. Merely, because the d