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.

ORDER :

Heard Sri R.Prabhakar, party-in-person/petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-V, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“...Under these circumstances, it is just and necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ Mandamus declaring the entire action of the respondents particularly the entire action of the 1^st respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner and treating the suspension period as on duty under FR-54(B)(3) and in issuing the present impugned Memo No. 2238/SCD.Vig /2021 dt. 15-03-2022, wherein treating the suspension period not on duty by quoting FR-54(B) (7), instead of treating the suspension period as on duty under FR 54-B(3), despite of clean acquittal/discharge from the criminal proceedings initiated in CC No. 61 of 2015 in Crime No 15/ACB-WRL/2012 in Crl.RC.No.29/2020 dt. 18-05-2020 of this Hon’ble Court on considering the material on record, this court is of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner (the Hon’ble Court made it very clear finding that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges leveled against him) is as highly illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, an excess jurisdiction, colourable exercise of power, vindictive attitude, non application of mind, contrary to provisions of FR- 54(B) contrary principles laid down the referred judgements are squarely covered order of the present case and however, while passing of the GO.Rt.No.96/SCD-Vig Department dt. 01-07-2021, the 1^st respondent has not applied his mind and there is no mention as to whether the period from 30-11-2012 to 31-03-2014 is to be treated as on duty or not, though he was supposed to pass an order under sub-rule(7) as stated in the GO.Rt. Dt. 01-07-2021, the same has not been done and consequently pray this Hon'ble Court to set aside or quash the present impugned Memo No. 2238/SCD.Vig./2021 dt. 15-03-2022 of the 1^st respondent, (b) Further hold that the petitioner herein is entitled for regularization of suspension period between 30-11-2012 to 31-03-2014 by treating the same as on duty under FR-54(B) (3) for all the purposes in view of acquittal/discharge from the criminal proceedings initiated in CC No 61 of 2015 in Crime No. 15/ACB-WRL/2012 in Crl. RC No. 29/2020 dt. 18-05-2020 of this Hon'ble Court (c) And consequently to direct the respondents to treat the suspension period between 30-11-2012 to 31- 03-2014 as on duty under FR-54(B) (3) for all the purposes in view of clean acquittal/discharge from the criminal proceedings initiated in CC No. 61 of 2015 in Crime No. 15/ACB-WRL/2012 in Crl.RC No. 29/2020 dt. 18-05-2020 of this Hon’ble Court”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that when the petitioner was working as an Assistant Social Welfare Officer in Mahabubabad, one Md. Muneeruddin lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had demanded bribe. Based on the said complaint, a criminal case was registered on 30.11.2012 under Crime No.15/ACB WRL/2012 by the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Warangal Division. The petitioner was arrested and placed under suspension with effect from 30.11.2012 vide proceedings Rc.No.J1/9915/2012 dated 04.12.2012. The petitioner’s suspension continued throughout the period leading up to his retirement on 31.03.2014 and the petitioner was not regularized as “on duty” despite being acquitted of the criminal charges in the year 2020 and the suspension period was treated as "Not on Duty", and accordingly settled as available leave as per G.O.Rt.No.96, dated 01.07.2021 of the Respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed review petition dated 07.12.2021 and the reviewing authority/Secretary to Government, SCDD, vide orders dated 15.03.2022 rejected the review petition by upholding G.O.Rt.No.96 dated 01.07