Manepalli Kondala Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3458] (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 7656/2021 Between: Manepalli Kondala Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.AKKISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent{S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services, appearing for the respondents.

#2. The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the 2'^'^ respondent vide DO. No. 100/2021, C.No.355/A8/2018 dated 23.01.2021, declaring the period out of employment between 09.11.2015 to 13.09.2016 and 22.06.2018 to 21.09.2020 as ‘not on duty’ and treating the same as ‘No work, no pay'.

#3. The petitioner appointed a constable 1®‘ respondent Department.

#4. It is contended that a complaint was made against the petitioner and two other constables & and one Station House Officer by victim alleging ill-treatment meted out to him at the police station, without registering a crime. The mother of the said victim appears to have addressed a letter to the High Court Suo Motu Writ Petition vide W.P. No.10981 of 2002. The said Writ Petition was disposed of holding that the victim was ill-treated and appropriate action should be initiated against the petitioner. Thus the 2"*^ respondent was directed to take appropriate action. Pursuant to the said direction , case was registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 109, 217, 323 324, 347, 348 r/w 34 of IPC. In the said case, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to three years of imprisonment and fine was imposed. On appeal being filed by the petitioner before the learned V Additional District Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, against conviction order, the sentence of imprisonment was suspended

#5. It is contended that, the 2^*^ respondent vide proceedings dated

18.11.2018 dismissed the petitioner from service, observing that the petitioner 3 was not entitled to continue in service, and that the said order was passed without any notice or inquiry.

#6. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of conviction before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru, East Godavari District, was allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction imposed by the trial Judge. Thereafter, pursuant to orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.5293 of 2020, filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the 2nd respondent to consider his reinstatement, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 11.09.2020. It is contended that the period during which the petitioner was out of ser\/ice/employment between 22.06.2018 to 21.09.2020, was treated as ‘not on duty’. The petitioner contends that since the order of conviction was set aside on 01.04.2019, the 2^^ respondent did not reinstate him into the service despite several representations, and it was only pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P. No.5293 of 2020, he was reinstated on

11.09.2020.

#7. The learned counsel relying on the provisions of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, contends that the period of 22.06.2018 to 21.09.2020 during which the petitioner was out of employment should be treated as on duty and consequently prays for directions to the respondents to grant consequential benefits of continuity of the service. 4

#8. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that since the petitioner is solely responsible for his conduct and the government is not responsible for the petitioner being out of employment, applying the principle of ‘No work, no pay’, the petitioner is not entitled to the continuity of service or regularization of the period during which he was out of employment.

#9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, A.K. Kishore Reddy, relying on the decisions of this Court in W.P. No. 14343 of 2020 passed in case of one of the co-accused, requests for similar order to be passed as was passed in the same.

#10. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the clause FR - 54 of Fundamental Rules, submits that whenever an order of reinstatement is made, the appointing authority has to pass appropriate proceedings regarding ‘Pay and Allowances’ payable to the government servant for his absence from duty and whether such period of absence should be treated as spent on duty.

#11. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in W.P. No.14343 of 2020 and W.P. No.1823 of 2021, requests passing of similar orders. The petitioner in W.P. No14343 of 2020 is similarly situated and was co-accused along with the petitioner in the Calendar Case registered against them in C.C. No.114/2015. 5

#12. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Vs. Brijmoham Kaur\ And further relying on the decision of the Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Nayak, S/o. Bhagbali Nayak Vs. State of Chattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Energy ^and on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of V.C. Jain Vs. State Bank of lndia\ submits that applying the principle of ‘No work No pay’, the petitioner is not entitled for benefit for the period during which he was out of employment. In the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh i/s. Brijmoham Kaur, it is observed as under:

#9. The direction of the Tribunai which is affirmed by the High Court, in our view, is against the all cannons of law directed by this Court. It is settled law that when an incumbent does not discharge any duty, the principle of no work no pay would be applicable. This consistent view has been taken by this Court keeping in view the public interest that any government servant who does not discharge his duty should not be allowed to draw pay and allowances at the cost of public exchequer. ” \

#13. Considered the rival submissions.

#14. This Court in W.P. No.14343 of 2020 in the case of similarly situated person, who was also one of the accused along with the petitioner in the same crime, following its earlier decision in W.P. No. 1823 of 2021 (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 488 ^ 2025 see Online Chh 4561 ^ 2023 see Online Del 6949 6 ^jjpected the respondents to pass appropriate orders regularizing the period of suspension with effect from 09.11.2015 to 13.09.2016 and 22.06.2018 to 21 09-2020 as on duty for all purposes including arrears of Pay and Allowances’.

#15. The respondents have not made out any case, to depart from the earlier decisions of this Court in W.P. No.14343 of 2020 and W.P. No.1823 of

#16. Following the aforesaid orders and for the reasons recorded therein, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the orders passed in W.P. No.14343 of 2020 and W.P. No.1823 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs.

#17. Office to enclose copies of the orders passed in W.P. No.14343 of 2020 and W.P. No.1823 of 2021 to this order. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sd/- N NAGAMWA SEC officer To,

#1. The Principle Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi at Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2: The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, at Kakinada.

#3. One CC to Sri A. K. Kishore Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

#4. Two CC’s to GP for Services-I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OPUC]

#5. Three CD Copies. (Along with a copy of the order passed in W.P.No.14343 of 2020 & W.P.No.1823 of 2021 to this order) HIGH COURT DATED:27/06/2025 ORDER WP No.7656 of 2021 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS APHC010217982020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] WEDNESDAY .THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14343/2020 Between: Velagala Krishna Reddy AND ...PETITIONER The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. seeking the following relief; , , to issue a Writ or order or direction Respondent particularly one m the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings issued D.O.No 527/2020 No.2 C.NO.355/A8/2018, dated 25.07.2020 declaring that the Petitioner is not on duty from 09.11.2015 to 18.07.2016 22.06.2018 to 11.12.2019 without reinstating the petitioner into service despite the conviction is set aside by the 2 already drawn and paid Appellate Court and further declaring that no work no pay principle is applicable in the case of the petitioner, further out of directing recover the OD salary for employment period petitioner from 01.11.2015 to 08.11.2015 and 22.06.2018 to departmental proceedings will remain a futile attempt as nothing but illegal arbitrary erroneous high handed and violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 21 of The Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by declaring that the petitioner is on duty on the even dates that is from 09.11.2015 to 18.07.2016 and 22.06.2018 to declaring despite

11.12.2019 as he was not reinstated into service by the Respondent No.2 "

#2. Heard Mr.G.Raghavendra Pavan, learned counsel representing Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for the respondents.

#3. On hearing, it is conjointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1823 of 2021, dated 18.10.2024.

#4. In view of the submissions made by both the petitioner’s counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is allowed, in terms of Ihe-. above said Order in Writ Petition No. 1823 of 2021, dated

18.10.2024. The impugned proceedings D.O.No.527/2020, C.N0.355/A8/20I8, dated 25.07.2020 issued by the 2"'^ respondent are hereby set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to regularize the suspension period of the petitioner from 09.11.2015 to 18.07.2016 and 22.06.2018 to 3

11.12.2019 as ‘On Duty’ for all the purposes including the arrears of pay and allowances, increments and promotion etc., in terms of Fundamental Rule 54(B)(3) and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

#5. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

#6. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the Order in Writ Petition No.1823 of 2021, dated 18.10.2024, to this Order. BMS Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J APHC010025832021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1823/2021 AND ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT{S) Between: Pilli Veera Venkata Satya Kumar State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: - following relief; petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution“Of4ndia for the CERTIORARTcalMnn fL'thT C No 8791/A1/2020 dated 28To2020?nTS 03/OE/PR/2011 R 0 No 19^2016 dated 06^04^ promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police desoite proved apart from taking undue^advantaae that thrnJri^H from 30 05 2010 to 20 07 2010 Shout orovino S petitioner totally illegal arSary Sonets h^r Constitution of India and corlsLuen^^^^ No 03/OE/PR/2011 R O No 199/2016 dited 06 04 2mfi d P from 30 05 2010 to 20 07 2010 as illeoal erhitran 21 of the Constitution of IncJ^a and pass suS.^h^r'ordr"" fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Praver ar^end'^^T^ vide I A No 1 of 2023 in WP No 1823 of 2021 Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF Pr^^^eedings issued by the Respondent No 3 vide Respondent No 2 vide C No candidature of the petitioner for against the petitioner are not ^ suspension which the petitioner underwent no considering the candidature of the of the Respondent No 2 vide C dec aring that the petitioner was not on duty handed and violative of Article 14 and this Honr^rable Court may deem amended as per Court Order dated 28 02 2023 21 "

#2. The grievance of the petitioner is that while he was working as Constable at Yeleswaram Police Station an anonymous petition was received by the 3'^'^ respondent from the general public of Yeleswaram village alleging that the then Station House Officer, Sub Inspector of Police N.Pothuraju are extracting money from the villagers even for simple disputes. Basing on that the petitioner was put under suspension from 30.05.2010 to 20.07.2010. When the suspension progress, Departmental enquiry conducted. During pendency of the said enquiry, the 3'"^ respondent called for willingness letter from the eligible candidates for sending them to pre- promotional training fit to act as head constables in which the petitioner given willingness and he was sent for training. The 2"^ respondent vide proceedings in C.N0.O3/OE-PR/2O11 R.O.No.199/2016 dated 6.4.2016 has concluded that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not proved and hence further proceedings were dropped and the suspension period is treated as Not on Duty. While the things stood thus, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to consider his candidature to be promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police as no charges leveled against him were proved and on the other hand the procession witnesses who turned hostile in the enquiry is not proved. Therefore, the case in CC No.298/2016 which was registered against the petitioner was ended acquittal. In fact the 2"^ respondent through its proceedings dated 6.4.2016 itself dropped the proceedings against the petitioner. When the 2 respondent has dropped the proceedings as the 3 Charges were not proved against the petitioner, the period of suspension i.e.,

30.05.2010 to 20.07.2010 cannot be treated as Not on Duty, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed.

#3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, submitted that Rule 8 where suspension is revoked exonerating a person fully his/her case may be considered for promotion with retrospective where While the disciplinary proceedings finally resulted in a penalty he will debarred during the period of penalty and subject to a minimum period of one year from the date of reinstatement. In case, the suspension period itself, is treated as substantive penalty, he shall be debarred for promotion/appointment by transfer by a period of one year both the selection and non selection post. is further submitted that the treating of suspension period not on punishment as per the G.O.Ms.No 331 Genl. Admn. (Ser.C) Dept, dt.03.05.2013 shall be considered With prospective effect only. Further he has issued with speaking orders explaining the reasons for not considering for his promotion as follows; It 2020 of the Hob ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In this connection, he is hereby informed that he was placed under suspension A/N to 20.07.2010 FN for the delinquency of duties. After conducting oral enquiry the discipiinary authority (i.e.,) Deputy Inspector has passed final orders vide Eluru General of proceedings R.O.No.199/2016 (C.No.3/OEPR/2011) dt.06.04.2016 dropping Eluru Range, Police, 4 further action against the charged officer but the period of suspension under went by charged officer from 30.05.2010 A/N to 20.07.2010 FN was treated not on duty as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile in the enquiry. Further, the Govt, in G.O.Ms.No. , 3'^'^ cited, have issued orders that, the promotion shall be considered with prospective effect only in respect of the cases where ii) Charges were dropped using the words such as let off, warning, benefit of doubt etc. In this case, the OE was not proved due to turned hostile of prosecution witnesses and hence further action was dropped and the period of suspension from 30.05.2010 AN to 20.07.2010 FN treated as "NOT ON DUTY" and it is not clean exoneration from the OE charge. Hence, the representation of petitioner for including of his name in the seniority list of HCs fit to act as ASIs with retrospective effect is considered and rejected.

#4. Heard Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. P. Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

#5. On hearing, learned counseTTor the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, has placed reliance on a judgment of High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad reported in K.Ram Prasad and Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda and others^ , wherein it was held that: -ru enquiry officer was appointed and submitted report on 15.04.2011 holding that the charge is not proved. Though the Government passed G.O.Rt.No.578, dated 12.05.2014 dropping further action, but treated the period of suspension as not on duty, which is highly arbitrary and unjust. The Government considered several cases WP No. 19286 of 2017, dated 22. i 1.2022 5 Sheif ac'quittaf ^ed-handedly trapped by ACB and treated their suspension period as on duty soon

#6. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterating the averments in the counter, has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported i Shri B.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana^, wherein the Apex Court held that; This Court held that cl. (b) of the Fundamental Rule absence from dutv diirinn th^ ^ levied against him, it was open to Government to decide what period of '* '"^possible for the appellant to get himself fully exonerated SinrP thP f think that cLse*ofthe sTale S.r„ce? * proceed on the basis as if the appellant has not been fully exonerated or to assume that unjustified.ln that view of the matter, we do no (sup,=) can be o, any '■

#7. Perused the material on record.

#8. As seen from the impugned Memo in C.No.8791/A1/2020, dated

28.10.2020, wherein it was mentioned that: .• G-0.ms.No.331 promotion shall be considered with prospective effect only in respect of the cases where Genl. Admn,(Ser.C) dated 03 05 2013 issued orders (i) Charges were dropped using the words such as let off, warning, benefit of doubt etc. ^ AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2472 6 Pr°section witnesses and hence further action was droDoed dropped and the period of suspension from 30.05.2010 to 20.07.2010 FN was treated as "NOT ON LDUTY" and it is representation for includ^ng^rh^s'nVme m th': e ioSnsro^HTs m J^aslsf eniority list of HCs fit to act as ASIs with retrospective effect, is considered and rejected. ‘°

#9. And as seen from the consequential impugned proceedings, dated

6.4.2016. issued by the 2"^^ respondent, wherein it was mentioned that “..wc/e reference 3'"^ cited, holding that the charge against the charged officer Sri P.V.V.S.Kumar, PC 970, formerly Yeleswara PS and now working in Gandepalli PS of East Godavari District as "Not Proved”.

#10. It is pertinent to mention here that Fundamental Rule 54-B sub- Rule (3) (4) and (5) reads as under; uniustifiod 'fhlT^'® unjustified, the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub- competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly ^ rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended: Provided that where such Authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed, due to reasons directly attributable to the Government serant fm v aier ‘he date on which communication Jo this fegardTseLToTlIiml ^d^'T considering the representation, if any submitted by him direct for reasons to be I ^ H H for all purposes. (4) In a case falling under sub-rule-(3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty the provisLl'Tsrruler'fra"nrmT submitted by Wm in StTnTt ..e aa.e «„ .a,s -1"—I J^sSSIJr."r, ”e and (3), the Government servant shall subject to considering the representation, if any,

#11. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in M.Gopal Krishna NaiH.. y_State of M.P.^ . (ii) in a case of P.J.Aqarwal V State of UP^ and (iii) B.H.Marwaha v Union of India^ held that “where an order proposed to be ^ AIR 1968 sc 240 " (1973) 1 SLR 194 ^(1973) 2 SLR 315 7 passed in FRs which causes pecuniary loss, an opportunity must be given to the employee likely to be affected.

#12. In a judgment of the Apex Court reported in M.Gopal Krishna Naidu V The State of Madhya Pradesh^ the Hon’ble Apex Court at paras 5 and 7 observed as under: (5) Under F.R. 54 where a government servant is reinstated, the authority has to consider and make a specific order (i) regarding pay and allowances payable to him for the period of his absence from duty and (ii) whether such period of absence should be treated as one spent on duty. The consideration of these questions depends on whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Government servant had been fully exonerated and in case of suspension whether it was wholly unjustified. If the authority forms such an opinion the Government servant is entitled to full pay and allowances which he would have been entitled to had the order of dismissal, removal or suspension, as the case may be, not been passed. Where the authority cannot form such an opinion the Government servant may be given such proportion of pay and allowances as the authority wp_19286_2017 13 SN,J may prescribe. In the former case the period of absence from duty has to be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes and in the latter case such period is not to be treated as period spent on duty. But the authority has the power in suitable cases to direct that such period of absence shall be treated period spent on duty in which case the government servant would be entitled to full pay and allowances. (7) The order as to whether a given case falls under Cl. 2 or Cl. 5 of the Fundamental Rule must depend on the examination by the authority of all the facts and circumstances of the case and his forming the opinion therefrom of two factual findings; whether the employee was fully exonerated and in case of suspension whether it was wholly unjustified. Besides, an order passed under this rule would obviously affect the government servant adversely if it is one made under CIs. 3 and 5. Consideration under this rule depending as it does on facts and circumstances in their entirety, passing an order on the basis of factual finding arrived at from such facts and circumstances and such an order resulting in pecuniary loss to the government servant must be held to be an objective rather than a subjective function. The very nature of the function implies the duty to act judicially. In such a case if an opportunity to show cause against the action, proposed is not afforded, as admittedly if was not done in the present case, the order Is liable to be struck down as invalid on the ground that it is one in breach of the principles of natural justice."

#13. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in a recent judgment dated

23.03.2022 reported in 2022 SCC online SC 378 in Civil Appeal No.2386/2022 State of Raiasthan & Another vs. Manqat Lai Sidana dealing with a similar situation at paras 16 to 24 observed as under; Para 16: "air 1968 SC page 240 8 _ Rule 54 with which we are concerned contemplates an amalgam of situations which deal with disciplinary wp_19286_2017 14 SN,J proceedings culminating in dismissal, compulsory retirement and removal and it also deals with absence from duty on account of suspension. In other words, when an employee at the end of the disciplinary proceedings is punished in terms thereof and as a result of the order passed is reinstated, then the competent authority is called upon to consider and pass specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid for the period for absence from duty. The Rule appears to separately contemplate the duty to provide for the pay and allowances for the period of suspension ending with the date of retirement on superannuation as the case may be. In other words, its application contemplates a situation wherein a Government servant being dismissed, the Rule in removed, compulsory retired or suspended is reinstated. a case where but for his retirement, he would have been reinstated while under suspension. In both these cases, the duty of the competent authority is to pass the order within the contemplation of Rule 54(1 )(a) and (b). This means that apart from dealing with pay and allowances, as to whether the period of absence is to be treated as duty must be dealt with. This Hows from Rule 54(1 )(b). The manner in which the authority is to pass the order is regulated by subsequent provisions in Rule 54. Sub-rule 54(2) contemplates that the competent authority must examine the proceedings, apply its mind, and find whether it is a case where the Government sen^ant at the end of the day has been fully exonerated. In the case of suspension where a person being under suspension is reinstated, the duty lies on the competent authority to consider the question as to whether the suspension was justified or wholly unjustified. If the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant would be entitled to be paid the full pay and dearness allowance which he was entitled to had he not been suspended. The same is the case of the Government servant dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. If it is found that at the end of the a is found that the employee stands Pe'ia'ty was wholly unjustified that, on merit it completely exonerated, he would be entitled to get full pay and dearness allowance It also takes in I Sords^^ifan ‘emoTovi^k 54(1)(bHn oth^rwo^s^^T* P^o.,s,ous of Rule 54(2) and (3) are mutually exclusive. In other P'®®'="be'.%ub-mle^'(T)"of Se these aspeS i„T „aer?ara o be tmalTra r'r " ? whem the eLlLeel r IseLl k nnr t r ! H V She oe^oTah "T n k that the period of absence shall be converted into leave of any kind due and servant. This would appear to be the scope and purport of Rule 54. had made it clear that the period of absence is Provisions of Rule 54(5) contemplate a situation ‘P^^^fore is governed by Rule 54(3). Then the period of be treated as duty unless the authority specifically directs that it shall be duty for any oontemplates that it is open to the Government to direct admissible for Government

#14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court observed that, the respondent, without contention of the petitioner that, the applying his mind and without considering the proceedings dated 06.04.2016 issued by the 2 respondent had dehied with promotion of petitioner as Assistant inspector of Police (Civil), when he was not punished and there are no departmental enquiries pending against the petitioner denying his right of promotion and degrading his seniority, is totally illegal. 9

#15. This court further observed that earlier the petitioner herein has filed WPNo.12103 of 2020 before this Court seeking to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Head Constable and the same was disposed of on 23.07.2020 directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. In pursuance of the same, the 3^^ respondent has considered the case of the petitioner and rejected his case for promotion.

#16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to above, this Court is of the opinion that, as per Section 54(B)(3) of Fundamental Rules, clearly states that, if an employee is exonerated, he is to be given such proportion of the pay and allowances the competent authority may prescribe. Therefore, this Court deems fit allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.

#17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned o proceedings in C.No.8791/A1/2020, dated 28.10.2020 issued by the respondent proceedings C.No.03/OE/PR/2011 R.O.No. 199/2016, dated 06.04.2016 issued by the 2 nd respondent are hereby set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to regularize the suspension period of the petitioner from 30.05.2010 to 20.07.2010 as ‘On Duty’ for all the purposes including the arrears of pay and allowances, increments and promotion etc., in terms of Fundamental Rule 54(B)(3) and pass appropriate 10 orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

#18. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. 18-10-2024 Gvl