IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO.7359 OF 2021 DATED : 23.03.2026 Between:

Sabhavat Shankar ... Petitioner AND The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited rep. by its Superintending Engineer (Operations), Medak at Sangareddy District and another ... Respondents

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus, (i) to declare the impugned Memo No.DEE / TRNS / SRD /

JAO / ADM / D.No.908/14, dt.31.10.2014 issued by the 2^nd respondent and the Memo No.SE/OP/MDK/PO/Adm/DC/ F.No.487/15, dt.18.05.2015 issued by the 1^st respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same, (ii) consequently to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension i.e., from 07.08.2008 till 30.04.2013 as ‘on duty’, duly granting all other consequential benefits, in terms of Regulation No.57 (2) & 57 (4) of the APSEB Service Regulations as adopted by TSSPDCL, and (iii) to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lineman and was later promoted to the post of Winder Grade-III. While working as such, on 03.08.2008, a criminal case was booked against the petitioner and 5 others under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and the same was numbered as SC.No.16 of 2011. Since the petitioner was in judicial custody on account of the said crime, he was suspended from service with effect from 07.08.2008 vide proceedings dt.12.09.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide Memo dt.15.04.2013 and he reported for duty on 01.05.2013. Thereafter, after the trial, the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case. The petitioner sought regularisation of his suspension period, i.e., 4 years and 8 months as ‘on duty’ with all consequential benefits and wages as he was suspended solely due to criminal arrest unrelated to his official duty as Winder. Vide Memo dt.31.10.2014, the 2^nd respondent treated the petitioner’s suspension period as eligible leave under Regulation 57(6) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-I as adopted by TSSPDCL (for short, ‘the Regulations’), adjusting subsistence grants against pay as per Regulations 57(5) and 57(6) of the Regulations. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suspension of the petitioner was based solely on criminal arrest which was unrelated to his official duty and since the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal case honourably, the suspension period should be regularised as ‘on duty’ and consequential benefits should be paid.

4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and submitted that since the petitioner was in judicial remand from 07.08.2008 and a report was submitted by the Inspector of Kukatpally Police Station to this effect, the petitioner was placed under suspension and an enquiry officer was also appointed and it is only after the report of the enquiry officer dt.20.12.2008, the petitioner was reinstated into service. He placed reliance upon Regulations 57(5) and 57(6) of the Regulations to submit that where the petitioner has been discharged or acquitted from criminal case on benefit of doubt, his suspension period has to be treated as leave period only and accordingly, the suspension period has been regularised and the petitioner was paid 50% as subsistence allowance for the first 6 months and was subsequently paid at 75% as subsistence allowance during the suspension period.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, submitted that the petitioner’s acquittal was not on benefit of doubt, but he was fully exonerated and reinstated and therefore, the suspension period has to be treated as ‘on duty’.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that undisputedly, th