Treating a suspension period as 'not on duty' after imposing only a minor penalty (such as censure) is unreasonable and effectively constitutes a major penalty; therefore, such periods should be regularized as 'spent on duty'.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the suspension period of the petitioner from 20.09.2019 to 08.11.2021 (780 days) as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to treat the said suspension period as duty as per FR 54-B, taking note of the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings by order dated 08.12.2020 in W.P. No.18656 of 2020, which attained finality in W.A.No.522 of 2021 by order dated 08.09.2021, and further direct the respondents to pay 50 percent subsistence allowance differential, annual grade increments, and all consequential monetary and service benefits including arrears, and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner to the 1st respondent on 22.07.2025 and 20.11.2024, and to the 2nd respondent on 25.09.2024, within a time-bound period, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RAVULA NAGARJUNA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. T JANARDHAN REDDY

2. GP FOR SERVICES II

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 of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the suspension period of the petitioner from 20.09.2019 to 08.11.2021 (780 days) as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to treat the said suspension period as duty as per FR 54-B, taking note of the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings by order dated 08.12.2020 in W.P. No.18656 of 2020, which attained finality in W.A.No.522 of 2021 by order dated 08.09.2021, and further direct the respondents to pay 50 percent subsistence allowance differential, annual grade increments, and all consequential monetary and service benefits including arrears, and pass…”

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

3. The case of the petitioner is that, while he was working as a Executive Director in DBCSCS Limited, Prakasam District, , certain allegations were made against him. In pursuance of the said allegations, the respondent No.1 issued a G.O.Rt.No.261, BC Welfare (Vig-D) Department dated 20.09.2019 and placed the petitioner under suspension. The Petitioner was subsequently reinstated into service on 08.11.2021 and continued in service till retirement on 31.01.2024. The Petitioner made representations dated 22.07.2025 and 20.11.2024 to the First Respondent to treat the suspension period as on duty along with payment of 50% of subsistence allowance, differential, annual grade increments and all consequential arrears, particularly in view of the finding that no loss was caused to the exchequer. In these circumstances, the petitioner contends that the continued refusal of the respondents to regularize the period of suspension is arbitrary and contrary to Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules , which mandates passing of specific orders regarding pay