The High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I(ARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.1686 OF 2024 Dated 12th December. 2025 Between: Chukkapalli Prasad AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Special Chief Secretary (Revenue and Excise), Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad & (2) others ORDER: Petitioner Respondents Seeking to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in issuing Memo No. 29064 / v ie.rr(2\ I 2025, Revenue. (vigilance. II) Department, dated 14.12.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Fundamental Rule 54 1B and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's suspension period from 14.06.2005 to 31.12.2007 as on duty with all consequential benefits, the present Writ petition is filed. 2 PK, J wp_1686_2024 \3 2) Heard Sri B.Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Ciovernment Plead.er for Services-l appearing for the respondents. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to erstwhile combined State Secretariat Service and while he was working as Assistant Section Officer, he was deputed t,r Prohibition and Excise Department as Prohibition and Excise Insrpector in the year 1992. Further, as the lien continued, his seniority was continued in the Department and as per Rules he was consjdered and promoted to the cadre of Section Officer vide Office Order dated 20.05.2005 along with all other eligible incumbents who were deputed to various departments from Secretariert. Further, during the interlude of communicating the promotiott order, the petitioner was implicated in a false ACB case on 14.06,2005, for which, the ACB oflicials have registered FIR No.11-ACB-HR/2005 against the petitioner and he was placed under surspension vide proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibitic,n & Excise, Hyderabad Division, in Cr.No.A3 /2612/2005, dated 23.06.2005. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that his promction was cancelled due to presence of disciplinary case, l': PK, J w_1686-2024 but any order as such has not been communicated to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was acquitted in the ACB case vide judgment dated 21.06.2012 in C.C. No.9 of 2006 rendered by the I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against which, ACB has preferred a criminal appeal vide CrI.A.No.1L55/2012 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 11.11.2OI8 confirming the judgment dated 21.06.2012. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted representations dated 06.O3.2023, 23.O3.2025,

24.03.2023 and 24.07.2023 to respondent No.1 for regalarization of his suspension period from 14.06.2005 to 31.L2.2o07 under FR- 54(3). As no action has been taken thereon by respondent No.1, petitioner has filed w.P. No.24320 of 2023 and the sarne was disposed of by this Court vide order dated o1.09.2023 directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As the respondents have failed to comply the said order, petitioner had preferred Contempt Case No.25O7 of 2023 wherein this Court has issued the show camse notice dated L7.tl.2o23 to respondent No.1 to appear on 15.12.2023 either in person or through 4 PK, J wp_1686_2024 representative. At that juncture, respondent No.1 in a hurried manner only to avoid contempt proceedings, without application of mind, has issued the Memo No.29064 lViS.Il(2)/2005, Revenue (Vigilance.ll) Department, dated L4.12.2O23, directing for release of pension and pensionaqr benefits.

3.1) Lear:ned counsel has further submitted that from the known sources, r:he petitionr came to know that no SLP has been filed as on,the da.te of issuance of impugned Government Memo. Further, the petitirrner has filed I.A. No.l of 2024 in C.C. No.2507 of 2023 on 18.01.2024 bringing the calumny and ma-lafide intention of responde:rt No.1 in creating proxy SLP before the Honble Supreme Court of tndia and requested the Court not to close the Contempt Case and requested to punish the respondents in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the impugned Memo dated

14.12.20113 would reveal that the Director General, ACB, vide letter dated 19,01.2023 has sought permission of the Government for f,rling SLI? before the Honble Supreme Court challenging the dismissar of Criminal Appeal No.1155 of 2ol2 vide judgment dated

11.11.2Ot>.2. However, no sanction is awarded. Hence, the action of the I'espondents in passing the impugned Memo dated : i, i !: I 5 PK, J wp_r686_2024

14.12.2023 rejecting to regularize the suspension period of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned memo dated 14.12.2023. [n support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on: a) Deainder Singh a. State of punjabt; b) Rqmlal a. Stqte of Rajasthan2; and, c) order dated 22.L0.2o24 passed by the Honble supreme Court in SLP (Crl) Diary No.17577 of 2024. 4) Per contra, the learned Government pleader has submitted that while the petitioner was rvorking as prohibition & Excise Inspector, sHo Amangal, Mahbubnagar District, he was trapperd by ACB on 14.06 .2025 on the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe and on the same day he r,vas placed under suspension. During the pendency of ACB case, he was retired from service on 3t.o7.2ol3. However, the petitioner was tried in a court of law and was acquitted vide judgment dated 21.06.2012 in c.c. No.9 of 2006 by the Special Judge for SpE & ACB cases. euestioning the I(zoog) I scc 728 2 2024 SCC Online SC 2594 \\ 6 PK, J wp_L686_2024 i same, th,: Government has preferred Criminal Appeal No.l155 of 2012 before this Hon'ble Court and vide judgment dated 1 1. 1 1.20 18 the said appeal was dismissed conlirming the judgment dated 21.06.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a representation before respondent No.1 seeking regularization of suspension period from 14.06.2005 to 31.12.2007 treating the said period as on duty under FR 54(3). While his representation was under examination, petitioner has filed W.P. No.24320 of 2023 wherein l.his Hon'ble Court has directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with larv within a period of four ',veeks thereof. In compliance of the said direction, responde:rt No.l has considered the matter and passed the impugnecl orders dated 14.12.2023 deciding to release full pension and all pensionary benefits due to the. petitioner and to treat his absence period as any kind of admissible leave, pending SLP before the Hont,le Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the ACB has filed llLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on20.O4.2O24 vide e-filing No.EC-SCINO1-13673-2024. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no SLP is filed is incorrect. It is further submittec[ that as per FR s4-B(1)(a) & (b), the competent authority i I I 7 PK, J wp_1686_2024 shall consider each case on its own merits and make a specific order whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. Thus, each case has to be examined by the competent authority under the powers conferred by the above provision of law and it is not an automatic application in every case. Therefore, the respondents have examined the case of the petitioner and rightly taken a decision to treat the suspension period as any kind of admissible leave, which action of respondent No.l is within the ambit of law. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on: a) RBI a. Bhopal Singh Pancals and b) Greater Hgderabad Municipal Corporotion a. M.Pro.bhq.ko;r Raoa. 5) This court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 6) A perusal of the record reveals that consequent upon registration of ACB case in crime No.11-ACB-HR/200S dated

14.06.2005, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 3 RIR t99+ sc 552 o lzot t; 8 scc 155 / t 8 PK, J wp_1686_2024

14.06.2005 and he continued under suspension till 3l.l2.2oor. Thereafte:, he was retired from service on 31.o7.2013. After filing of charge sheet, the case was numbered as cc No.9/2006 on the file of I r\dditional special Judge for sPE & ACB cases-cum-v Additional chief Judge, city Civil court, Hyderabad. After due trial, the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case vide judgment dated 21.06.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the Department has preferred criminal Appeal No.1l55/2oI2 before this Courr- and the said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 1 1. 1 1.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a represent:rtion'w,ith a request to treat the suspension period from L4.O6.2O05 to 31.07.2007 as on duty as per FR 54(3). But, on considerat:ion of the said representation, respondent No.1 has passed th,: impugned order dated 14.12.2023 directing respondent No.3 to re'lease fulI pension and other pensionary benefits due to the petitioner duly considering the absence as any kind of admissibk: leave pending SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme court, if any other cases are pending against him. 7l Rele'zant portion of the impugned ord.er dated r4.r2.2o23 is extracted hereunder for better appreciation of the matter: \\ : ', I F r. I a. T I L t. 9 PK, J wp_t686_2024 "7. Government, after carefur consideration of the matter and in compliance with the orders of the Honble High court, Dt:o r.o9.2o23 in w.P.No.24320 of 2023 have decided to release fulr pension and alr other pensionarjr benefits due to Sri C.Prasad, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Amangal, Mahaboobnagar District, and accordingly, direc[ the Director, Prohibition & Excise, Telangana state, Hyderabad to release full pension and all other pensionery benelits due to sri c.prasad, prohibition & Excise Inspector (Regd.) dury treating the absence period as any kind of admissible leave, pending sl-p before the Honble Supreme court of India, if no other cases are pending against him.,, 8) A perusal of the impugned order dated r4.r2.2o23 discroses that no reasons are assigned by respondent No.1 for taking such decision/before coming to the conclusion to treat the period of suspension as any kind of admissible leave. 9) Here, it is relevant to refer to FR 54-B which reads as under: "F'R'54-B' (3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rure (B), be paid the fuil 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 attributabre to the Government servant, it may after giving him an opportunity to make his representation..,, a/ , 10 PK, J wp_1686.2024 10) Furl.her, it is also necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble liupreme Court in Prabhakar Rco's cq.se (referred supra) wherein it is held as under: . "15. Sub-rule (3) of FR 54-B does not state that in case of acquittal in crinrinal proceedings the employee is entitled to his salary and allowarLces for the period of suspension. Sub-rule (3) of FR 54-B also does n,:t state that in such case of acquittal the employee would be entitlec to his salary and allowances for the period of suspension unless him is proved in the disciplinary the charge of misconduct against proceectings. Sub-rule (3) of FR 54-B vests power in the competent authority to order that the employee will be paid the full pay and allowarrces for the period of suspension if it is of the opinion that the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustified. Hence, even where the emrloyr:e is acquitted of the charges in the criminal trial for lack of evidence or otherwise, it is for the competent authority to form its opinion whr:ther the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustilied and so long as such opinion of the competent authority was a possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the materials before it, such opinion of the competent authority would not be interfered r,vith by the Tribunal or the Court." 11) Frorn the above, it is clear that where the employee is acquitted of the charges in the criminal trial for lack of evidence or otherwise, the regularization of the suspension period is not automatic: and it is for the competent authority to form an opinion whether tee suspension period was wholly unjustified. PK, J w_1686_2O24 12) Here, it is also relevant to refer to the findings given by the trial Judge in c.c. No.9 of 2006 in its judgment dated 2t.o6.2ot2: *38. on a careful evaluation of these facts and on the synthesis of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed in placing cogent, convincing, reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence to bring home the guilt of the Ao forthe offences under sections 7 and 13 (l) (d) read with sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, l9BB. Accordingly, these three points are answered in favour of the Ao and as against the prosecution." 13) A perusal of the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 does not disclose as to on what basis respondent No.l has concluded for treating the suspension period of the petitioner as any kind of admissible leave and absolutely no reasons are forthcoming for holding that the petitioner is not entitled for treating his suspension period as on duty. L4l rherefore, this court is of the view that it is appropriate to direct the respondents to reconsider the issue strictly in terms of FR 54 (B) by duly taking into consideration the observations made in the judgment dated 2r.06.2012 in c.c. No.9 /2006 rendered by the I Additional special Judge for spE & ACB cases-cum-V Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad, and pass t2 PK, J wp_i686_2024 r appropri€rte orders, without reference to the impugned order dated

14.12.20:23, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate thereof to the petitioner. It is madr: clear that any decision so taken by the respondents shall be subje<:t to the outcome of the SLP filed by the respondents on

20.O4.20'24 vide e-filing No.EC-SCINO 1 - 136T S-2O24. 15) witrr the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. t SD/.M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Special Chief Secretary (Revenue and Excise) State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad- 500022.

2. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Government of Telangana, Banjaril Hills Road No. 12, tt/LA Colony, Besides Sharon Church, NBT Nagar, Hyderabad- 500034.

3. The Cc,mmissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Prohibition and Excise Complt:x, Nampally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001.

4. One C(l to SRl. BONDEIvIPALLY RAMULU, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two C()s to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT]

6. ONe C(] to SRI VIDYA SAGAR RAo cHITNENI , STANDING coUNSEL CUM SPL P.P. FoRA.o.B, [OPUC]

7. Two CD Copies DAN BS HIGH COURT DATEET:1211,212025 ORDER WP.No.1686 of 2024 t( THE S o * fl 3 trlifl 7f17fr * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \o ',b : i i i i I I i I i I I I I I i I I i i iI I I I , I I I I I I I, f I f !, i: I I i!i r i t: I I i I i:. t. \\