Telangana High Court
The Secretary, vs K.S.M. Prakash, on 1 August, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
Writ Petition No.17247 of 2005
ORDER :(Per Hon'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records connected with order in O.A.No.2031 of 2001 with V.M.A.No.318/01, dated 20.04.2005 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and to quash the same as erroneous and contrary to law.
2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Education, for the petitioner, and Mr. Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. It has been contended by the petitioner that the respondent was engaged as 'Record Assistant' with the petitioner; the disciplinary authority has placed the respondent under suspension vide proceedings dated 11.12.1998, on the alleged ground that some criminal ::2:: AKS,J & GAC,J wp_17247_2005 cases are pending against the respondent; when the subsistence allowance was not paid as per the Rules, respondent had approached the Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2031 of 2001 seeking a relief to pay subsistence allowance to the respondent under Section 47(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'); and and also to pay enhanced subsistence allowance after one year.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the disciplinary authority had reinstated the respondent into service vide proceedings dated 13.08.2004; but, the learned Tribunal erred in entertaining the O.A. and directed that the respondent is entitled for full salary in terms of Section 47(6) of the Act, and allowed the O.A. vide order dated 20.04.2005.
5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.2031 of 2001, dated 20.04.2005, the present Writ Petition is filed.
::3:: AKS,J & GAC,J
wp_17247_2005
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the grievance of petitioner was that he was not paid wages for the suspension period as per Section 47(6) of the Act, the respondent ought to have approached the authority under the Act; the learned Tribunal could not have entertained the O.A. and granted relief directing the petitioners to pay wages as per Section 47(6) of the Act; therefore, prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.2031 of 2001 dated 20.04.2005, and to allow the Writ Petition.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that admittedly the petitioner has placed the respondent under suspension vide proceedings dated 11.12.1998 and he was continued under suspension up to 13.08.2004; the suspension period has to be regulated as per Fundamental Rule 54-B; admittedly, the disciplinary authority has not passed any orders under Fundamental Rule 54-B; be ::4:: AKS,J & GAC,J wp_17247_2005 that as it may, though the learned Tribunal might not have jurisdiction, the learned Tribunal has directed to pay wages for the suspension period.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that under Fundamental Rule 54-B, the disciplinary authority must pass orders as to how the suspension period has to be dealt with; and therefore, prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the Writ Petition directing the disciplinary authority to consider the case of petitioner and pass a specific order as to how the suspension period has to be dealt with under under Fundamental Rule 54-B after giving opportunity to the respondent.
9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal erred in directing the petitioners to pay wages for the suspension period under Section 47(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.2031 of 2001, dated 20.04.2005, is set aside. The disciplinary ::5:: AKS,J & GAC,J wp_17247_2005 authority / petitioner shall pass orders as to how the suspension period of the respondent has to be dealt with i.e., from 11.12.1998 to 13.08.2004 in accordance with Fundamental Rule 54-B, and pass appropriate order that too after giving opportunity to the respondent.
10. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date : 01.08.2022 Ndr