Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Challa Obulesu vs Board Of on 6 April, 2026
Author: D Ramesh
Bench: D Ramesh
APHC010302222024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3208]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 15170/2024
Between:
1. CHALLA OBULESU, S/O OBULESU, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC SCHOOL
ASSISTANT (P.E.), ZP HIGH SCHOOL, N. NARASAPURAM,
GUNTAKAL MANDAL ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT A.P.
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, ANDHRA
PRADESH, D.NO. 398/3, VENKATADRI TOWERS, BESIDES HAPPY
RESORTS, ATMAKURU VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL,
GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP
3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,
KADAPA, YSR DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT,
ANANTHAPUR A.P.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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
a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing
proceedings Rc.No. ESE02-14026/9/2023-E-VI dt 23-01- 2024 wherein treated
the suspension period from 14-02-2022 to 05-04-2023 (1 year 1 month 23
2
days) as Not on Duty and the consequential proceedings issued by the 4th
respondent vide Rc. No. 2006/A3/2021 dt 12-03-2024 and Rc. No.
2006/A3/2021 dt 24-06-2024 even though the petitioner was acquitted in
Criminal case in (POCSO) Sessions Case No. 112 of 2022 dt 28-02-2023 by
the Hon'ble Court of Special Sessions Judge for Trail of Cases under the
POCSO Act, 2012, Ananthapuram is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of
Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution and consequently set aside the same
by directing the respondents to treat the suspension period from 14-02-2022 to
05-04-2023 as on duty with all consequential benefits and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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
direct the respondents to treat the suspension period from 14-02-2022 to 05-04-
2023 of the petitioner as on duty keeping in view of the acquittal of Criminal
Case vide Sessions Case No. 112 of 2022 dt 28-02-2023 by the Hon'ble Court
of SPL. Sessions Judge for Trail of Cases under the POCSO Act, 2012,
Ananthapuram by suspending the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent
vide Rc.No. ESE02-14026/9/2023-E-VI dated 23-01-2024 and the
consequential proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide Rc.No.
2006/A3/2021 dated 12-03-2024 and Rc.No. 2006/A3/2021 dated 24-06-2024,
pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
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
grant leave to these respondents in the W.P.No.15170 of 2024 to file counter
affidavit in the above writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES III
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No. ESE02-14026/9/2023-E-VI dt.23-01-2024 wherein treated the suspension period from 14-02-2022 to 05-04-2023 (1 year 1 month 23 days) as Not on Duty and the consequential proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide Rc.No.2006/A3/ 2021 dt.12-03-2024 and Rc.No.2006/A3/2021 dt.24-06-2024 even though the petitioner was acquitted in Criminal case in (POCSO) Sessions Case No.112 of 2022 dt.28-02-2023 by the Hon'ble Court of Special Sessions Judge for Trail of Cases under the POCSO Act, 2012, Ananthapuram is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to treat the suspension period from 14-02-2022 to 05-04-2023 as on duty with all consequential benefits and pass...."
2. Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the petitioner was placed under suspension from 14.02.2022 and a criminal case was registered against him. Subsequently he was reinstated on 01.4.2023. In the said criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted. Subsequently, the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings and the same were concluded vide order dated 18.11.2023 imposing a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. When the respondents have not regularized the service of the suspension period, the petitioner has made a request for regularization of suspension 4 period and the same has been considered and rejected vide orders dated 12.3.2024 treating the period from 14.02.2022 to 05.4.2023 as 'not on duty'.
4. Learned counsel further contended that when the minor punishment is imposed, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for regularization of suspension period under Rule 54(B) of Fundamental Rules treating the suspension period as on duty. But surprisingly the respondents have rejected the case treating the suspension period as not on duty. It is contrary to the observations made by the High Court of Bombay (Goa Bench) in S.P.Naik vs. Board of Trustees, Mormugao Port Trust, Goa and another1 wherein the Court has observed that if any minor penalty is awarded the suspension should be considered in terms of F.R.54(B) and the employee should be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order. By following the above said observation, the coordinate Bench of this Court has also disposed of the W.P.No.18893 of 2021 by extending the same benefit treating the suspension period as on duty. Accordingly, the petitioner is also entitled to consider his case for regularization of suspension period as per F.R.54(B).
5. Reply to the same, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed reliance on the instructions issued 1 1999 SCC OnLine Bom111 5 by the Government Circular Memo dated 06.12.2008. According to the circular memo regularization of suspension when a employee was under
suspension out of office for his involvement in a private criminal/civil case has categorically instructed that amount of subsistence allowance if any already paid to him need not be recovered and while regularizing the period of suspension, the competent authority may has to decide whether the period of suspension wholly justified or unjustified. If the competent authority decide that the period of suspension is wholly justified the period of suspension shall be regularized as not duty for all purposes and pay and allowances for that period should be limited to subsistence allowances already paid. Accordingly, the respondent authorities have considered the instructions in the above said referred memo and passed orders regularizing the services of the period as not on duty. Accordingly the impugned orders are in terms of the Government instructions dated
06.12.2008 as legal and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) cited supra and also the observations of the coordinate bench in W.P.No.18893 of 2021, the impugned orders are set aside remanding the matter to the competent authority i.e. respondent no.4 herein to re-consider the issue once again in terms of the above observations and pass appropriate 6 orders under F.R.54(B), within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH 06.4.2026 RD 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.15170 OF 2024 06.4.2026 RD