In cases of suspension pending criminal prosecution followed by acquittal, where service regulations are silent on the entitlement to full wages, the Court may direct payment of partial back wages from the date of acquittal to reporting for duty to meet the ends of justice.

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the action of the respondents in treating the period of suspension, i.e., 25.10.1999 to 03.05.2007, as leave on loss of pay, as illegal and to set aside memo No.DEE/lines/North/Sec'bad/O&M/D.No.655, dated 22.08.2009, issued by the 3rd respondent and consequential Memo No. SE/OP/N/Hyd/ADM/A2/D.No. 134/2010, dt.27.09.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently, direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension, i.e., 25-10-1999 to 03-05-2007 as on duty, by regularizing and releasing full wages for the same period, after adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri Shashank Garige, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TRANSCO, appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) The petitioner was initially appointed as a helper in the erstwhile APSEB on 04.07.1962, and later, he was promoted as A.I.M. While so, the petitioner was kept under suspension w.e.f.17.11.1999 on the ground that the petitioner was an accused in crime No.296 of 1999. Later, the petitioner was convicted in SC No.185 of 2001, dated 22.10.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.325 of 2004 before this Court. Having considered, the Division Bench of this Court acquitted the petitioner on merits.

(b) Consequent upon the petitioner’s acquittal, he submitted a representation on 20.10.2006 requesting to reinstate him into service. Instead of reinstating him into service, an Enquiry Officer was appointed vide memo dated 02.01.2007, to conduct the enquiry. Accordingly, vide Memo dt.17.01.2007 Enquiry Officer framed the charge alleging that the petitioner harassed his wife by demanding additional dowry, which amounts to moral turpitude. However, consequent upon conducting an enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, holding the charges as ‘not proved.’ Accordingly, vide memo dated 04.05.2007, the petitioner was reinstated into service.

(c) Consequent upon the petitioner’s reinstatement, he submitted a representation on 24.07.2007 requesting to treat the period of suspension, i.e., from 25.10.1999 to 03.05.2007, as ‘on duty’ and also regularize the said period by paying wages. Thereafter, he also submitted representations on 31.08.2007 and 23.02.2008, respectively. But vide Memo dated 19.06.2008, the petitioner’s request was rejected, and a show cause notice dated 16.07.2009 was issued, calling upon the petitioner to explain why the period of suspension should not be treated as ‘leave on loss of pay.’ Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply on 04.08.2009. Without considering any of the submissions made by the petitioner and without looking into the report of Enquiry Officer dated 17.02.2007, the 3rd respondent issued a memo dated 22.08.2009, treating the period from 25-10-1999 to 03-05-2007 as leave on loss of pay.

(d) Aggrieved by the above memo dated 22.08.2009, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 20.11.2009. But the appeal was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide memo dated 27-09-2010. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Division Bench of this court categorically acquitted the petitioner of the charges on merits, it is improper on the part of the respondents to treat the period