A suspension period must be treated as ‘on duty’ when charges against an employee are dropped, affirming rights under Fundamental Rules.

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated

30.04.2013, to the extent of treatment of the petitioner’s suspension period from 15.12.2011 to 11.09.2012 as ‘not on duty’, in spite of dropping of the departmental action against him.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as Panchayat Secretary of Sankepalli Gram Panchayat, was placed under suspension vide orders dated 07.12.2011, on the alleged ground that he was absconding from his duties. Thereafter, upon considering his representation, his suspension was revoked on 11.09.2012, pending disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, on the same day, he was served with a charge memo, to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation, stating that he underwent treatment for his ill-health and requested to drop the charges. However, an enquiry officer was appointed and after conducting an enquiry, he submitted his report, holding the charge leveled against the petitioner as not proved. Consequently, respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 30.04.2013, dropping further action against the petitioner. However, his suspension period from 15.12.2011 to 11.09.2012 was treated as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in treating the suspension period of the petitioner as ‘not on duty’ is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of the Fundamental Rules. It is contended that the petitioner is fully entitled for treatment of his suspension period as ‘on duty’ for all purposes, including the consequential pay and allowances, in view of dropping of his charges, as per FR 54(b). It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary on contract basis under Medical Invalidation grounds, and the services of the candidates appointed along with the petitioner were regularized w.e.f., 02.03.2012, i.e., during the petitioner’s suspension period. However, only on the ground that the petitioner was under suspension, his case was not considered for regularization. As such, in view of dropping of the charges, the petitioner is not only entitled from treatment of his suspension period as ‘on duty’ for all purposes, but for regularization of his services, w.e.f., 02.03.2012, on par with his batch mates. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner absconded from his duties from 15.11.2011, without obtaining permission from the concerned authorities. Thereafter, on 26.11.2011, a meeting was convened but the petitioner neither attended the same nor contacted the officers. As such, he was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 15.12.2011, which was later revoked on 11.09.2012, pending disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 11.09.2012 was issued against the petitioner, and a departmental enquiry was ordered. After conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report, observing that the petitioner was admitted in District Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar, for treatment, and thus, held the charge leveled against him as not proved. In his report, he also observed that the petitioner may be left off with a warning to be careful in discharging his duties in future. As such, in view of the gravity of the case, while dropping further action against the petitioner, respondent No.3 was justified in treating the period of suspensio