Telangana High Court
Secy., Education Dept. 2 Others vs V. Ravi Kumar 2 Others on 1 November, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1 AKS, J & RRN, J
WP No.976 of 2010
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.976 of 2010
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for brevity, "the Tribunal") in O.A.No.6633 of 2005 dt.19.08.2009.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the petitioners and Sri P. Devender, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
3. It has been contended by the petitioners that the respondent No.1 was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher and he was involved in a criminal case i.e. Cr.No.54 of 2002 and he was detained for more than 48 hours and the petitioners have placed the respondent No.1 under suspension on 14.06.2002. However, the respondent No.1 was acquitted of the said criminal charge by the Competent Criminal Court vide judgment dt.11.02.2004. However, petitioners have treated the suspension period as "not on duty." Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.6633 of 2005 and the Tribunal directed the petitioners to treat the suspension period as spent on duty with 2 AKS, J & RRN, J WP No.976 of 2010 all benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the punishment orders and held that the respondent No.1 is entitled for all the benefits during suspension period. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6633 of 2005 dt.19.08.2009.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has contended that the Disciplinary Authority had not initiated any disciplinary proceedings and the respondent No.1 was placed under the suspension only on the ground that a criminal case was pending against the respondent No.1 and finally, the respondent No.1 was acquitted. Therefore, the entire suspension period has to be treated as 'spent on duty' and the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A. in favour of respondent No.1.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has further drawn attention of this Court that the orders passed by the Tribunal were not suspended by this Court, and that the said impugned order has been worked out itself.
3 AKS, J & RRN, J WP No.976 of 2010
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by both parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have placed the respondent No.1 under suspension only on the ground that the respondent No.1 was involved in a criminal case and when once the respondent No.1 was acquitted in a criminal case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioners to treat the suspension period as 'spent on duty.' Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Dt. 01.11.2022 BDR/HK