An acquittal does not automatically dictate salary payment during suspension; the competent authority must evaluate if the suspension was wholly unjustified.

ORDER :

Seeking to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in issuing Memo No.29064/Vig.II(2)/2025, Revenue (Vigilance.II) Department, dated 14.12.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Fundamental Rule 54 1B and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s suspension period from 14.06.2005 to 31.12.2007 as on duty with all consequential benefits, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2) Heard Sri B.Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to erstwhile combined State Secretariat Service and while he was working as Assistant Section Officer, he was deputed to Prohibition and Excise Department as Prohibition and Excise Inspector in the year 1992. Further, as the lien continued, his seniority was continued in the Department and as per Rules he was considered and promoted to the cadre of Section Officer vide Office Order dated 20.05.2005 along with all other eligible incumbents who were deputed to various departments from Secretariat. Further, during the interlude of communicating the promotion order, the petitioner was implicated in a false ACB case on 14.06.2005, for which, the ACB officials have registered FIR No.11-ACB-HR/2005 against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension vide proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad Division, in Cr.No.A3/2612/2005, dated 23.06.2005. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that his promotion was cancelled due to presence of disciplinary case, but any order as such has not been communicated to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was acquitted in the ACB case vide judgment dated 21.06.2012 in C.C. No.9 of 2006 rendered by the I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against which, ACB has preferred a criminal appeal vide Crl.A.No.1155/2012 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 11.11.2018 confirming the judgment dated 21.06.2012. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted representations dated 06.03.2023, 23.03.2023, 24.03.2023 and 24.07.2023 to respondent No.1 for regularization of his suspension period from 14.06.2005 to 31.12.2007 under FR- 54(3). As no action has been taken thereon by respondent No.1, petitioner has filed W.P. No.24320 of 2023 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2023 directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As the respondents have failed to comply the said order, petitioner had preferred Contempt Case No.2507 of 2023 wherein this Court has issued the show cause notice dated 17.11.2023 to respondent No.1 to appear on 15.12.2023 either in person or through representative. At that juncture, respondent No.1 in a hurried manner only to avoid contempt proceedings, without application of mind, has issued the Memo No.29064/Vig.II(2)/2005, Revenue (Vigilance.II) Department, dated 14.12.2023, directing for release of pension and pensionary benefits.

3.1) Learned counsel has further submitted that from the known sources, the petitionr came to know that no SLP has been filed as on the date of issuance of impugned Government Memo. Further, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 in C.C. No.2507 of 2023 on 18.01.2024 bringing the calumny and malafide intention of respondent No.1 in creating proxy SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and requested the Court not to close the Contempt Case and req