Telangana High Court
L. Baloji Naik vs The State Of Telangana on 19 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION No.16250 of 2020
ORDER:
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the dismissal from service order dated 13.06.2020 vide G.O.Rt.No.48, dated 07.02.2020 and also seeking a direction to treat the period from 15.10.2018 (when the petitioner was relieved under the orders of repatriation) to 07.02.2020 (when the impugned order was passed) as compulsory wait period and to pay the salaries due to the petitioner for the said period and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Municipal Administration Department. He was deputed to GHMC and in the year 2010, a criminal case was registered against him by the ACB for allegedly accepting a bribe. The petitioner, thereafter, was convicted by the criminal 2 Court and the petitioner challenged the conviction order by filing an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.2962 of 2018 along with I.A.No.1 of 2018 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner has been suspended by this Court vide orders dated 16.11.2018.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime, the petitioner has made a representation to the respondents to consider his case for repatriation to the parent department. The respondents have passed the orders, dated 15.10.2018, repatriating the petitioner to the parent department i.e. Director of Municipal Administration and the petitioner submitted his joining report dated 16.10.2018. However, according to the petitioner, he was not permitted to work and finally the impugned proceedings dated 07.02.2020 were issued dismissing the petitioner from service, as he has been convicted by the criminal Court. 3
4. It is submitted that since the criminal appeal is pending before this Court, he has not challenged the order of dismissal from service, dated 07.02.2020, but he seeks that the period from 15.10.2018 to 07.02.2020 be treated as compulsory wait period under the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules 9(6) and the salary and other benefits be paid for the said period.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 25.02.2021 stating that since the petitioner has been convicted in the criminal case, he had to be dismissed from service and with regard to the compulsory wait period, the issue is being examined in consultation with advisory departments and after receipt of the remarks, necessary action will be taken to treat the period from 15.10.2018 to 07.02.2020, as compulsory wait period.
6. Learned Government Pleader had received instructions dated 25.04.2024, according to which, 4 after submitting the joining report on 16.10.2018, the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent to the duties and was dismissed from service on 07.02.2020 and therefore, treating the said period i.e. from 15.10.2018 to 07.02.2020 as compulsory waiting period will not arise and the petitioner is not entitled to claim the pay and allowances for the absence period.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this ground of unauthorised absence is being taken for the first time now by the Government without any basis and only to defeat the claim of the petitioner.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that neither in the impugned order G.O.Rt.No.48, dated 07.02.2020, nor in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 25.02.2021, have the respondents taken the stand that the petitioner has remained unauthorizedly absent from the duties after 5 submitting his joining report dated 16.10.2018. Therefore, this Court is also of the view that the stand now taken by the Government that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 16.10.2018 till 07.02.2020 is without any basis and therefore, it cannot be accepted at this stage. The Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rule 9 (6) and also ruling 13 thereunder explain the compulsory wait period as under:
"When a Government servant on return from leave has compulsorily to wait for orders of posting, such periods of waiting should be treated as duty. During such periods he will be entitled to pay according to Rule 20."
It is not that the petitioner remained absent from duty, but it is because the respondents did not allow the petitioner to render his services after submission of joining report. Such being the case, this Court is of the view that the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rule 9 (6) and ruling 13 thereunder is applicable to this case and the petitioner is entitled to pay and allowance for the compulsory wait period. 6
9. In view of the same, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on granting the pay and allowance to the petitioner for the compulsory wait period, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner may seek or challenge the order of removal after disposal of the criminal appeal, if it is in favour of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date:19.06.2024 TU