Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle a government employee to treat the suspension period as duty with full pay and allowances under F.R. 54-B(3); such benefit is contingent upon the competent authority's opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified.

ORDER:

Heard Sri J.Konda Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.Sravan Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the impugned proceedings vide Proc.Rc.No.6817/A2(B6)/2011 dated 03.02.2025 issued by the respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned Counsel for petitioner further submits that while the petitioner was working as School Assistant (Biological Science) in ZPHS Thunikikalsa, Mulugu Mandal, he was suspended vide proceedings in Rc.No.6817/B6/2011 dated 07.09.2011 by the respondents on the ground of judicial remand exceeding more than 48 hours in Crime No.63/2011 on the file of Mulugu Police Station. Thereafter, Articles of Charge were issued in Rc.No.6817/B6/2011 dated 28.04.2012. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.05.2012 denying the charges and he was later reinstated into service, pending disciplinary action vide Rc.No.6817/B6/2011 dated 18.03.2013.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the criminal case arising from the same set of facts vide C.C.No.759/2011 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Medak and ended in the acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 12.10.2012. Basing on the inquiry report and the Criminal Court’s Judgment, the District Educational Officer, Medak issued Rc.No.6817/B6/2011 dated 25.08.2014 dropping further action against the petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that, thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued proceedings in Rc.No.1208/Ser.IV-1/2015 dated 23.05.2015 permitting the District Educational Officer to treat the suspension period from 05.09.2011 to 30.04.2013 (604 days) as eligible leave, and consequently the District Educational Officer, Medak at Sangareddy issued proceedings in Rc.No.6817/B6/2011 dated 17.08.2015 treating the said period as 68 days as Earned Leave, 94 days as Half Pay Leave and 442 days as Extraordinary Leave. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.364 of 2016 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) and the matter was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.(TR).No.5533 of 2017.

6. Learned Counsel further submits that, this Court, disposed of the W.P.(TR).No.5533 of 2017 on 21.04.2023 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 09.09.2014 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order and pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a further representation on 17.10.2023 to the respondent No.1 seeking to treat the suspension period from 05.09.2011 to 30.04.2013 as duty and to release consequential benefits including pay, allowances and seniority. Without considering the case of the petitioner, the respondent No.1 issued the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.6817/A2(B6)/2011 dated 03.02.2025, holding that treating the suspension period from 05.09.2011 to 30.04.2013 as duty was not feasible as the Department was not responsible for the criminal case filed against the petitioner and the petitioner himself was solely responsible for such criminal case and further applying the principle of “no work no pay” irrespective of the petitioner’s acquittal, which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Rules.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the charges framed in the Departmental Enquiry were dropped and the Criminal Case on the same set of facts ended in acquittal and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to all service benefits including treating his suspension period