THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

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

“…to issue a direction, order or writ more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus a. Declaring the action of the 1^st Respondent in issuing Memo.

No. 494/Vig/A2/2002, dated 22.6.2013 and Memo. No. 494/Vig./A2/2002, dated 25.11.2013 treating the period of suspension between 15.6.2002 to 23.9.2004 as not spent on duty as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;;

b. Consequently, direct the Respondents to treat the entire period of suspension as being ‘wholly unjustified’ and therefore as period spent on duty; thereon release the increments withheld during the period; revise the pay and allowances due and payable; promote the Petitioner as Deputy Commissioner of Labour on par with his immediate junior; and release the arrears that would become payable;

c. Also direct the Respondents to release all the terminal benefits duly taking into account the implementation of the relief prayed at b. supra and pay up the arrears of the pension together with interest at the rate of 9% with quarterly rests on the terminal benefits due and payable to the Petitioner with effect from the date of retirement i.e.

30.6.2007;

d. More with a view to ensure accountability of the officers concerned, declare that the petitioner is entitled to exemplary costs for having subjected him to fiscal and mental torture and also denying the rightful dues based on false complaint and after payment of cost by the Respondents herein direct that the amount towards interest and costs be recovered from the personal funds of the officers held responsible for the same…”

2. Heard Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel, representing Smt. Goda Ramalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Labour Officer through the Public Service Commission on 12.02.1979 in Zone-IV, and was later promoted as Labour Officer in Multi Zone-II. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Labour on 17.02.1979, and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2007. While working as Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ananthapur, one Smt. M. Radha, Attender of the petitioner office made a false complaint against the petitioner, alleging the she has been subjected to sexual harassment by the petitioner, supported by the department officials. Considering the nature of allegation, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour ordered for a preliminary enquiry during the year 2002, and the enquiry officer submitted his preliminary enquiry report on 10.06.2002, stating that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner, on the basis of which, he was placed under suspension on 11.06.2002, by the then Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad. Thereafter, the said suspension was revoked on 08.10.2003, subject to pending disciplinary action, and the petitioner was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad. However, strangely, within a couple of weeks of issuing the revocation orders, the respondents have issued proceedings dated 24.10.2003, cancelling the revocation orders, on the pretext of public interest. The said proceedings seem to have been issued based on the enquiry report only to keep the petitioner away from his official duties in view of initiation of criminal proceedings against him.

4. It was further submitted that acting upon the representation of the petitioner, the Government, vide Memo dated 12.08.2004, directed the then Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh, to revoke the suspension order. Accordingly, the petitioner’s suspension was revoked vide order dated 23.09.2004, and he was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Labour, K