APHC010076302026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3208]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 4395/2026 Between:

1. D M K AMBEDKAR, S/O. D.SURYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC SURVEYOR (ON ARRANGEMENT) OFFICE OF DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, R/O.D.NO.22-28, LINGALATHOTA COLONY, LINE-1, PAYAKARAOPETA, PAYAKARAOPETA, ANANKAPALLI DISTRICT-531126.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, 522238 GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT. 521456

3. T HE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI. 531001 ...RESPONDENT(S):

The Court made the following ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ Mandamus declaring the Memo no. 5122/E4/2002 dated 7.1.2026 issued by the Respondent no. 2 rejecting the request to regularize and treat suspension period ass on duty from 20.10.2021 to 9.2.2023 and to pay backwages, increments and all the other consequential benefits as per Rule 54b of THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES AND SUBSIDARY RULES having awarded minor punishments of censure by proceedings no. 15394/E- VG/2023 dated 10.1.2024 as arbitrary, illegal colorable exercise of power apart from being violated of fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Article 14, 1921 of the Constitution of India and consequently a) Set aside the memo no. 5122/E4/2002 date 7.1.2026 issued by the Respondent no.2. b) Further direct the Respondents to regularize the suspension period between 20.10.2021 to 9.2.2023 and provide all the consequential benefits such as backwages, increments and promotions, etc., and pass

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Memo No. 5122/E4/2002 dated 07.01.2026 issued by the 2^nd respondent, whereby the request of the petitioner to regularize and treat the suspension period from 20.10.2021 to 09.02.2023 as duty and to grant back wages, increments and all other consequential benefits in terms of Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules was rejected, is arbitrary and illegal, particularly when the disciplinary proceedings culminated only in the imposition of a minor punishment of censure vide proceedings No.15394/E-VG/2023 dated 10.01.2024.

4. He submits that an identical issue had fallen for consideration before this Court. In that context, the erstwhile composite High Court observed that once a minor punishment such as censure or warning is imposed, treating the period of suspension as “not on duty” would amount to imposing a more severe punishment. It was held that censure is only a minor penalty in nature, whereas denial of “on duty” treatment for the suspension period results in serious civil consequences and partakes the character of a major punishment.

5. Following the said judgment, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 19390 of 2020, disposed of the writ petition with similar observations:-

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of A.V.Vinod Kumar v.

Executive committee of the central Warehousing Corporation New Delhi and another3, it was held that Censure is a minor punishment something like a warning to be careful in future. In fact, in the Order dated 24.12.1991, it was stated that a lenient view in the matter was taken to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to improve his behaviour and to be careful in his work in future. While holding so, treating the period of suspension as 'not on duty', cannot be said to have been done in good faith and good conscience. The censure itself is a punishme