Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bhupani Venkata Naidu vs The State Of Ap on 20 March, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.5093 OF 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in passing Memo No.31131/Vig.II(2)/2010-20 dated 15.01.2019 there by rejecting the request to regularize the period of suspension that the petitioner have undergone from 19.06.2010 to 31.01.2013 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same."
The petitioner was appointed as an attender, later promoted as Typist, Senor Assistant and Sub-Registrar Grade-II and retired in the same capacity. He was placed under suspension during his service and reinstated into service revoking the suspension order due to registration of crime by Anti Corruption Bureau against him while working in Rayalaseema region at Kurnool, and after completion of full-fledged trial, he was found not guilty and acquitted by the Special Court of trial of ACB cases on 02.01.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to regularise the period of suspension i.e. from 19.06.2010 to 31.01.2013 as to enable him to draw the differential pay and allowance on account of drawal of 50% subsistence allowance from the day of suspension to the day of revocation of suspension. But the request of the petitioner was rejected vide proceedings Memo No.3131/Vig.II(2)/2020-20 on the ground that an appeal is pending against the judgment in C.C.No.87 of 2013, but the rejection of the request of the petitioner is contrary to Fundamental Rule 54 - B (for short "F.R.54-B"), requested to set aside the same.
Learned Government Pleader for Services - I submitted an appeal is filed on 07.07.2015 with a petition to condone the delay in MSM,J WP_5093_2021 2 filing appeal, but till date the appeal is not numbered by condoning delay in filing the appeal. Further, it is contended that when an appeal is pending, respondents cannot be compelled to regularise the period of suspension by applying F.R. 54 - B, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
As seen from the material on record, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 19.06.2010 and reinstated into service on 31.01.2013 while permitting the petitioner to discharge his duties. The suspension was on account of registration of crime by Anti Corruption Bureau, and the same was registered as C.C.No.87 of 2013. But C.C.No.87 of 2013 was ended in acquittal. Therefore, in such case, F.R.54-B is applicable to such case. When the petitioner is permitted to report duty after revoking suspension and when he was acquitted, final order has to be passed. Mere filing of appeal, with delay condonation petition is not a ground to stop the services benefits to the petitioner.
According to F.R.54-B, when a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement while under suspension; the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order regarding the pay and allowance to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be, and whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.
Before an order treating the period of suspension is passed affecting the employee financially it must be passed after objective consideration and assessment of all relevant facts and after giving MSM,J WP_5093_2021 3 him full opportunity to make out his case. (Vide: B.D.Gupta v. State of Haryana1).
In view of the judgment of the Apex Court (referred supra), the memo impugned in the writ petition is illegal, arbitrary as the same was passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and failure to consider the representation strictly in accordance with F.R.54-B is a seriously illegality. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner strictly in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in B.D.Gupta v. State of Haryana (referred supra) and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, only after giving him an opportunity of hearing to make out his case.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 20.03.2021 Ksp 1 AIR 1972 SC 2472