Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K. Aslam Basha, vs The Of State Andhra Pradesh, on 26 September, 2025
APHC010222962025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
. (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ©
\o
\
m ©i
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 12132 OF 2025
Between:
K. Aslam Basha, S/o. Dasthagiri Saheb, ages about 63 years, Rtd.
School Assistant (Eng) Z.P.H.School, Kandukuru, Ananthapur Rural,
Ananthapur District. R/o. 13-1-683, Revenue Colony, Ananthapur,
Ananthapur District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The state of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School
Education Department, Secretariat Buildings. Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Government of
Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada-521456.
3. The District Educational Officer, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District.
4. The Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Saifabad, Hyderabad
5. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Govt, of A.P.^ Ibrahimpatnam,
Vijayawada.
6. The Head Master, ZPH School, Kandukuru Ananthapur Rural,
Ananthapur District.
7. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary, Finance
and Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the proceedings in
Rc.No.1734/Estt.lV/2018,dt. 19.02.2019 of the 2nd respondent and
proceedings in Rc.No.21/(A3)A5/2010 dated 21.03.2019 issued by the 3rd
respondent in treating the suspension period of the petitioner from
06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 ( 1 year 5 months 14 days) as eligible leave (at the
credit of the teacher on 05.01.2011) and in not treating the suspension period
as
on duty (compulsory wait) from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 (1 year 5
months 14 days) though the petitioner acquittal in session case No 331/2011
vide Judgment dt.19.12.2013 by the Hon'ble 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Ananthapur is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to Fundamental Rules,
also contrary to orders of this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court and
violation of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the
same and consequently direct the respondents to treating the suspension
period from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 (1 year 5 months 14 days) as on duty
(Compulsory wait) with all consequential benefits
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
suspend the proceedings in Rc.No.1734/Estt.lV/2018, dt. 19.02.2019 of the
2nd respondent and proceedings in Rc.No.21/(A3)A5/2010 dated 21.03.2019
issued by the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents to treating the
suspension period from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 (1 year 5 months 14 days)
as
on duty (Compulsory wait) pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: V SESHA KUMARI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: GP FOR SERVICES II
Counsel for the Respondent No. 7: GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following :
% APHC010222962025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3506]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 12132/2025
Between:
...PETITIONER
K. Aslam Basha,
AND
...RESPONDENT(S)
The Of State Andhra Pradesh and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner;
1.VSESHA KUMARI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES II
2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING
2
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:-
" to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more declaring particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus the action of the proceedings in Rc.No.1734/Estt IV/2018 dt 19 02 2019 of the 2"" respondent and proceedings m Rc.No.21/A3A5/2010 dated 21.03.2019 issued by the 3 respondent is treating the suspension period of the petitioner from 06 01.2011 to 19.06.2012 1 year 5 months 14 daysand as eligible leave-atthe credit of the teacher on 05.01.2011 in not treating the suspension period as on duty compulsory 14 days wait from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 1 year 5 months though the petitioner acquittal in session case No.331/2011 vide^Judgment dt.19.12.2013 by the Honble 1 Additional and Sessions Judge Ananthapur is illegal arbitrary unjustof this contrary to Fundamental Rules also contrary to orders of Honble Court and the Honble Apex Court and violation set Article 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and aside the same and consequently direct the treating the suspension period from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 1 year 5 months 14 days as on duty Compulsory wait with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders....'' and learned
2. Heard Smt.V.Sesha Kumari, learned counsel for petitioner Assistant Government Pleader for Services-1 for respondents.
3. Petitioner while working as School Assistant, was placed under he was involved in crime suspension by proceedings dated 05.01.2011 as No.509 of 2010 for offences under Sections 498A, 307 read with 34 of IPC & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The suspension was on and Sections 3 account of petitioner being arrested on 30.12.2010 and later been enlodged 1 to be reinstated into service on s^n bail. Thereafter, petitioner came 19.06.2012. Petitioner has participated in the trial and thereafter he has been 3 X acquitted in SC.No.331 of 2011 by judgement dated 19.12.2013 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge at Ananthapur, and meanwhile, got superannuated on 31.01.2013. Thereafter, petitioner made representation to respondents for treating the period of suspension from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 as on duty with all consequential benefits. As the same was not considered, he preferred O.A.No.2567 of 2018 before Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which came to be disposed by orders dated 29.11.2018 directing the respondents to consider the said representation.
However, the respondents passed orders dated 19.02.2019 & 21.03.2019 holding that the period of suspension only be eligible for leave. Assailing the same, petitioner preferred present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of FR 54 B the period of suspension, in present facts of the case has to be construed to be on duty and also placed reliance on Division Bench Judgement in W.P.No.28451 of 2014 and therefore urge to allow the writ petition in terms of the same.
5. On the other hand; learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents does not refute the factum of petitioner being under suspension in view of involvement in criminal case which later ended in i;
acquittal. However, he contends that considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents have granted relief of considering the aforesaid period to be eligible for leave which cannot be found fault with.
46. The issue as to whether, when an employee is found to be acquitted as not being guilty of any misconduct or any crime, it would be unreasonable to withhold the loss he would suffer on account of accounting of the period of suspension, is now succinctiy deait with by a Fuii Bench decision which was foiiowed by this Court in W,P.No.21334 of 2021 ini Para
- 6 which held as follows:
or ii She?
ract that interim suspension cannot legally be a measure^me nf
7. In view of the aforesaid vi
- view, the same has been later followed by Division Bench of this Court, In view of the same and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition succeeds, the i
- impugned order dated 19.02.2019 & 21.03.2019 are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the period of suspension from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 as on duty. Further, respondents are directed to pay allowances with consequential benefits to the petitioner in terms of FR 54 B within a 5 period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order strictly in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- A VENUGOPAL RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Note: "The Date 31.01.2023" is Corrected as "31.01.2013" in Paragraph No. 3 as per Courts Order Dated 26.09.2025 in lA No. 2/2025 Substitute this Amended order in Place of earlier order which was dispatched on 09.09.2025 Sd/- T. SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To.
1. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, state of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings. Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada-521456.
3. The District Educational Officer, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District.
4. The Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Saifabad, Hyderabad
5. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Govt, of A.P. Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada.
6. The Head Master, ZPH School, Kandukuru Ananthapur Rural, Ananthapur District.
7. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District
8. One CC to M/s V Sesha Kumari Advocate [OPUC]
9. Two CCs to GP for Services II High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
10.Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
11.Three CD Copies gsc HIGH COURT DATED:23/06/2025 26/09/2025 AMENDED ORDER WP NO. 12132 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS