1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Qayam Khan

(Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed against the order dated

24.8.2006 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 8342 of

2005. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. By the impugned order, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to treat the suspension period of the respondent as on duty and to issue notice and pass appropriate orders with regard to the period during which the respondent was out of service after dismissal from service till the date of reinstatement. Though the learned Government Pleader sought to contend that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and therefore it is liable to be set aside, a perusal of the material available on record discloses that the period during which the respondent herein was under suspension was from

1.2.1997 to 31.7.1997 and, therefore, it was prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.214 dated 22.12.1997 by which the proviso to G.O.Ms.No. 238 dated 7.4.1992 was omitted. The said proviso stipulates that where the departmental proceedings against an employee placed under suspension for the imposition of major penalty finally end with the imposition of a minor penalty, then the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified and such employee should be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing an appropriate order. In the light of the fact that the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent have been ended by awarding the punishment of Censure, i.e. minor penalty, and also in view of the fact that the period of suspension was prior to omission of the proviso to G.O.Ms. 238 dated 7.4.1992, the Tribunal rightly held the period of suspension as on duty and that the respondent – applicant is entitled to full pay and allowances during the said suspension period and we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the said order passed by the Tribunal. Further, no material is placed before us also to show that the respondent was given any notice to treat the period during which the respondent remained out of service i.e. from the date of dismissal till his reinstatement, as not on duty, as required under F.R. 54-B. In such view of the matter, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal rightly remanded the matter on that aspect to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, duly putting the respondent – applicant on notice. Having perused the material available on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. dismissed. We find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly T. MEENA KUMARI, J. S. ASHOK KUMAR, J. Date: 26-03-2008. MVB.