The High Court · 2025

No.1504 of 2006 viCe order dated 1210612020 of the Hon'trle High Court, with all consequential bene'its. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition underr Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou..t may be pleased to forthwith direct th,:r respondents to regularize the suspension period from 2510311995 to 1510',;.11999 and dismissal period from 281121?-006 and 2810212O11 as on duty for all thr: purposes, in view of acquittal from th,: Criminal Charges by this Hon'ble Courl in Criminal Appeal No.1504 of 2006 vide order dated 1210612020, by duly considering the Proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondert vide Proc. Cr.No.6/1995/CPE/SR, Dt. 1410512024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES t The Court made the following: ORDER T EHO RIJ E H EE A w PETITIoN NO.1 s98 0F 2025 ORD ER: This Writ Petition is hled by the petitioner seeking the following reliet "....to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the suspension period from 25 O3'1995 to ti.OZ.tgSg and dismissal period between 2a 12'2006 and 28.O2.2O1 1 as on duty for all purposes under F.R.54-B with all consequential benefits such as Notional seniority and promotions on par with his immediate juniors, u'ho promoted ignoring the case of thc petitioner, while pendency of criminal proceedings in C.C.lio. tZ of 1996 on the hle of Prl' Spl' Judge for SPO and ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad and not releasing monitory benehts duly restoring the petitioners zonal seniority in terms of 33 (a) of State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, in view of acquittal from the Criminal Charges in Criminal Appeal No.tSO+ of 2006 vide order dated 72'06'2020 from the Honourable High Court, is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, impropir, violative of al1 principles of natural justice"

2. Heard Mr.Arvind Kumar Kata, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents.

3. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this Writ I I l Petition is srluzrreh, covered by the order passed by this Court in V,'P (TR).No.3639 of 2017, dated'.25.01.2024 and therefore, the same order may be passed in this writ petition as wel1. Tire operative portion of the said c,rder reads as under: 'Pe jtioncr is entitled to arrears of pay, incr cmer-rts and consequential benefits for the sus rensior-r period i.e., from 12.10.2r101 to O4.i)5.:2007 and 24.12.20 12 to till thc date of t.e., 24.O7.2OL3. With regard to the reir)stirt€ment perrod o[ dismissal from service i.,:., from 05.r)5.2OO7 to 23.L2.2012, petitioner i-. cntitled to iiotional bcnefits and continuity of service. Hor.cver, u,ith regard to back-wap,es, thc resl rondt:nls shall take a decision within zr period of six u'eeks zrnd communicate the sarrr( to the petitioner".

4. In view of the said order, this Writ Petition is disposed of directin;1 thr: respondents to regularize the suspension period of pi:titioner i.e., from 25.03.1995 to I 5i.02.1999 with all conseqr,rential benehts such as arrean-s of pay and increments With regard to the period of dismissal from servlce 1.e between 2A.12.2006 and 28.02.'.>-()1 1, petitioner is entitled '.o notional benefits, promotions arrrl continuity of servrce. ['or,r'ever, with regard to back-wages, the respondentr; shall take a decision within ir period of six I i weeks and communicate the same to the petitioner' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions' if aly, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. sDjKisSEuWAHtS,S|IXX ,TTRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER ment, Secretariat venue( Excise) DeP rabad. Hyde To,

1. The SPect Buildings' al Chief S The State ecretary, Re of Telangana' Secretariat epartment, D Buildin Prohibition a elangana, H vderab Excise epartment, State of Telangana'

2. The PrinclP al Secreta ry, Finance and Planning D ss,rh 3T he Commts Hvd erabad 4. The DePutY c istrict gal D Waran Cto Sri Arvind Kumar 5 One C 6T wo CCs to GP for Services Hvderabad tourl 7. Two cDcoplCS e State ofT sioner of ommissioner of Prohibition and Excise' Waranga Division' OPUCI he State of Telangana' at dvocate I rt for t High Cou Kata, A TJ SrPong *itt the Copy of Order dated 25'01'2024 ln W'P'No'3639 of 2017) ry-- HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.12598 of 2025 q J lnE S 14 16 \ Ill firr rm ) 6 ( C) * t. ,L ., ! s..r/ -, f i.l) y' <::;--=--:---a-' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o\9 (. h HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.3639 of2OL7 ORDER This writ petition has been ftled by the petitioner seeking the following reliei "... to declare that the petitioner's period of suspension shall be treated as on duty for all purposes consequent upon his reinstatement into service including fxation of pay, increments, arrears of pay etc., and for Junior Assistants scale w.e.f. 17.12.2OO1 consequent from petitioner's acquittal in criminal appeal no.1499 of 2005 by holding the action of respondents in not treating the period of suspension and out of employment as not on duty for all purposes and thereby depriving increments, arrears of pay etc., as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, discrirninatory and in violation of Articles, 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and to pass.."

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition that petitioner initially appointed as Village Administrative Officer on 28.O9.1995, that he was implicated in the false ACB trap case on 28.06.2000 and that he was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 29.06.2000. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner frled O.A.No.4649 of 2OOO before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (APAT) praying to call for records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 2a.O6.2OOO issued by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad and quash the same and to gralt subsistence allowance. The 2 LNA.J tt'P (TR) No-36-19 of 2 0 I 7 Tribunal vide order dated 27.04.2O01, allowerl the O.A. on the grounr I that subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner. Later, petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 12. 1O.2001.

2.I. It is r:ontendecl that on 17.11.2001, optior:rs were called for effectilg appointment as Panchayat Secretaries and accordingl..., the petitioner had exercised option. In connection with the ACB case vide C.C.No.2S of 2O01, the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-lV Addl. Chief Judrle, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, ,:onvicted the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.1499 of 2005 before this Hontrle Court.

2.2. Meanu,hile, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.617 Revenue fVigilance- VIII) Department, dated 05.05.20O7. It is contended that this Honble Court vide judgment dated 12.72.201i2 allowed the Criminal t\.ppeai No.1499 of 2OO5 by setting aside the judgment jn C.C.No.25 of 2001 and according$ petitioner was acquit:ed. Consequent upon the acquittz[ in crimina_l case, petiti,rner submitted representation date,1 12-12.2012 3 LNA,J tYP (fR) No.3639 oI20l7 requesting for reinstatement irrto service. The Government vide Memo No.4692O lvig.Vll(2ll2oo7-6, dated 24.07.2Or3 issued orders reinstating the petitioner into service. Consequently, petitioner was posted as Village Revenue Officer vide orders dated 13.08.2013 by the f,'a respondent.

2.3. It is contended that 3'd respondent issued proceedings dated 06.02-2014 permitting the Tahsildar to draw petitioner's salary in the sca-le of pay for Junior Assistant w.e.f. date of joining. Petitioner submitted that once the orders of dismissal dated 05.05.2007 was issued on the basis of conviction in criminal case, consequent from his acquittal, it is deemed that petitioner's reinstatement into service dates back to 05.05.2007 and the period of suspension and period spent on out of emplo5rment has to be treated as on duty for all purposes including fixation of pay. Hence, the present writ petition.

2.4. The APAT passed the interim orders dated 29.O4.2O15, by which, petitioner was directed to make a representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the respondents were directed 4 LNAJ trP (TR) No.36)9 of2017 to consicler a-nd pass appropriate orders on the representa tion of the petitioner within a period of three months fr,tm the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner.

3. Hear,1 Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government pleader for Services-Il appearing lbr respondents.

4. Learrred counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in leinstatement of the petitioner into service is attributabir: to the Department, but not to the tr:titioner and that the s,uspension period from |2.1O.2OOL to date of dismissal, i.e. 05.O5.2007, and out of emplcyment period i.e., from tlLe date of dismissal i.e., O5.05.2OO7 1o till the date of reinstatement, i.e. 24.07.2013 has to be treaterl as on duty with all consequential benefits including increments, arrears of pay etc. in r.iew of acquittal of the petitionr:r in criminal

5. In sr-rpport of the contention, learned counsel for petitioner rt:lied on the following decisions: 5 LNA.J ,I'P (rR) No 3639 ol2017 i) Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology History, Coimbatore and another vs. K.Sebastianl; ii) State of Uttar Pradesh Chakrawarthy andothersz; vs. & Dr. Natural Mathew Dayanand iii) Prem Nath Bali vs. Registtar, High Court of Delhi and another3; iv) Shobha Rarn Raturi vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and othersa; v) State of U.P. vs. Charan Singhs; vi) Decision of this Hon'ble Court in B.Yadagiri vs. The Government of A.P., vs. and others (W.P.(TR).No.252 of 2017)

6. Per contro. the Government Pleader opposed the contentions put forth by the counsel for petitioner and wouid submit that the petitioner failed to make out aly case and therefore, he is not entitled for reliefs sought in the writ petition. Consideration: 7 . The undisputed facts which emerge from the pleadings arrd contentions of both the parties is that, petitioner was appointed as Village Administrative Officer on 28.09.1995 and ' zozz Jsy sclLe ' lzot:1 z scc sss ' 1zots1 rc scc +ts o 1zots1 te scc so: ' zots 1a1 scc tso 6 LNA,J fi P (TR) No 3639 of2017 was placed under suspension on 29.06.2OOO on the ground of alleged trerp conducted by ACB on 28.06.2000 and was reinstated rnto service on 12.10.2OO1. Further, petitioner was dismissed liom service vrde proceedings dated 05.05.2007 in view of the conviction in criminal case vide C.C.l,lo.25 of 20O l. The petitioler preferred appeal before this Hon'tle Court and vide order rlated: 12.12.2O12 the petitioner was tr:quitted. The petitioner r;ubmltted representation on 24.72.2O12 for re- instatemen- and the petitioner was reinstated inr o service vide Governmenr Memo dated 24.O7.2013.

8. It is rclevant to refer to FR 54-B (3) & (4) which govern the aspect of 1;ay altd a-llowalces of suspension period of arr employee ar,d arc reproduced for ready reference: "131 \tthere thc authorify competent to order reinstalement is ol the opinion that the suspension was whouy unjustiEed, the Government servant shall subjec. to the prorisions of sub-rule (8), be paid the fuu pa-v arrd allowi r.rccs to which he would have been entitled, trad hc not br en suspcndcd: Provided that rvhere such Authority is of the opinr()n that the t.,rmrnation of the proceedings instituted aga.n;t the Gove. ment servant had been delayed, due to reasons directly attributable lo the Government servant, it may aJter gi\.inj'ljm all opporl rnity to make his representation (within sixty days frcrn the date oD which communication to this regaid is served o )rim) and after ( onsjdering thc representation, if any submitted by him, direct br reasons to be recorded in wridng, that the Go.eelnment servafl shall bc paid for the penod of such delay {olll]r such amourt (not being the whole) of such pay and allowan,:es as it may d, termine). 7 LNA,J WP (TR) No.3639 oI20l7 (41 In a case falling under sub-rule-(3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes."

9. From perusal of FR 54-8(3) and (4), it is clear that on acquittal in criminal case, the suspension peribd of the charged employee has to be treated as on duty.

10. In Prem Nath Bali (supra), the Honble Supreme Court in Paragraph- 20 held that it is a settled principle of law tJlat once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the ru1es. The appointing authority, keeping in view of the nature arrd gravity of the charges, hnding of the inquiry officer, entire service record of the delinquent employee and all relevant factors relating to the delinquent exercise its discretion and then impose the punishment as provided in the rules.

10.1. In Paragraph-2l, it was observed that one such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority in inflicting the punishment then the courts are slow to interfere in the quantum and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes the punishment. Such power is exercised when the court frnds that the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment 8 LNA,J nP (R) No.3639 of20t7 inflicted o n him is wholly unreasonable, ;l-bitrar5i and disproporti, rnate to the gravit5r of the proved clLarges thereby shocking the conscience of the court or when it is found to be in contravention of rules. The court may, in such czLses, remit the case to tl ,c appointing authority for imposing any other punishmen as against what was originally awarded to the delinquent r:mployee by the appointing authorit5. as per the rules or m:ry substitute the punishment by its.elf instead of remitting tc, the appropriate authorit5r. 1 1. In Shobha Ram Rathuri (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in p;rragraph-3 held that having given our thoughtful consideratir'n to the controversy, we are satisfied that the impugned order was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential benehts. The fault lies with the Respondents in not having utilized the services of the appellant. Had the appellant b,ren illlowed to continue in service, he would have readily dis, harged his duties. Having restrained him from rendering his services, the Respondent carnot be allowed to press the s, lf-ser-rring plea of denying him wages for the period in question, on tl.re plea of the principle of "no worl< no pay". 9 LN,4.J W (TR) No.3639 of 20 t 7

72. In B.Yadagiri (supra), the this Hon'ble High Court in paragraph- 14 held that in the instant, the respondents dismissed the petitioner from services solely basing on the conviction of the sentence of imprisonment .imposed by the learned Prl.Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was set aside by this Court, acquitting the Petitioner. His dismissal being solely on account of conviclion, he calnot be denied the benefit of back wages ald other service benefits. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for back- wages and other benefits.

13. In Raj Narain vs. Union of India and others6, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph-6 held as under: '6. The decision of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore lRanchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Gujarat Electricity Board, (19961 11 SCC 603 : 1997 SCC (1&S) 4911 was followed by this Court in Union of Indiav. Jaipal Singh [Union of India v. JaipoL Sing\ (2OO4) r SCC l2l :2OO4 SCC (L86S) 121 to refuse back wages to an employee who was iniLially convicted for an offence under Section 3O2 read, with Section 34 IPC and later acquitted by the High Court in a criminal appeal. While refusing to grant relief to the petitioner therein, this Court held that subsequent acquittal would not entitle an employee to seek back wages. However, this Court was of the opinion that il the prosecution is launched at the behest of the department and the employee is acquitted, different considerations may arise. The learned counsel for ttre appellant endeavoured to distinguish the prosecution launched by the police for involvement of an employee in a criminal case and the criminal proceedings initiated at the behest of t}le employer. The obsergation made in the judgment io Union of India v. Jaipat Singh luninn of India v. Jaipal Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 127 : 2OO4 SCC (L&S) I2l has to be understood in a malner in which the department would become liable for back wages in tlre event of a ' 1zors1 s scc aos ( 10 LNA.J ttl' OR) No 36t9 oI20)7 hnding that the initiation of the criminal proceeding: was mala hde or with vexatious intent. In all other cases, *J ao .roi ,.. ary diflerence betwecn initiation of the criminal pror;eedings by the departrnent vis i-vis a criminal case lodged by tne piiice. For exi mple, if an employee is involved in- emblzrzlement of funds or is found indulging in demald and acceptan:tr of rii.g.f gratific. rion, the employer cannot be mutcted witlL full back wage-s (rn.tlre acquittal of the person by a criminal court, unless it is fou.rd that the prosecution is maliiious..

13.1. In thr: above referred case, the appellant was placed under suspension on 23 . j O .l9T g in contemplation )i disciplinar5r proceedings on the allegation of petitioner,s involvement in forged payn rents of high value money orders. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner and he was convicted an(l sentenced to imprisonmeet for three years, however, on appeal the petitioner was acquitt( d from the charges.

14. From the .rbove decision, it is clear that on acquittal, an employee is not entitled to back wages as a matter of right. However, th,lre are two exceptions to the above, one being the prosecution launched at the behest of the delt:rtment alrd secondly, if it is found that ttre prosecution is nr:rlicious. The Hon'ble Ape < Court held that appellarrt is entitled tbr back_ wages only from the date of acquittal till the date of his reinstatement ancl the full wages for the suspension period i.e., from 23.1O..t979 to 27.10.79g2 on the ground trat appellant was acquitteC from cnmina_l case registered against him and 11 LNAJ wP (TR) No 3639 of20I7 disciplinary proceedings initiated against him was dropped by the department on 2 1.03. 1983.

15. The other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners are not relevant to the facts of the present case and therefore, they do not come to the aid of the petitioner.

76. In the present case, petitioner was suspended on

29.06.2000 in view of trap conducted by the ACB on 28.06.2000 and suspension was revoked on 12.iO.20O1. The petitioner stood dismissed from serrrice on 05.O5.2007, in view of conviction in criminal case vide C.C.No.25 of 2O01. The petitioner was acquitted from criminal case by this Court only vide judgment dated 12.12.2OL2. The petitioner submitted representation for reinstatement on 24.12.2012 and was reinstated into service vide Government Memo dated

24.07.2013. Thus, there is delay of about seven months in reinstatement of petitioner into service by the respondents from the date of submission of representation.

17. In the light of above discussion, in considered opinion of this Court, petitioner is entitled to arrears of pay, increments and consequential benefrts for the suspension period i.e., from

12.IO.2OOI to O4.O5.2OOT and. 24.12.2012 to till the date of I I 1 i , t2 LNA,J tt/P (rR) No.3639 oI20t7 relnstatemr:nt i.e., 24.07.2013. With regard to the period of dismissal liorn service i.e., from OS.OS.20O7 tct 23.12.2012, petitioner s entitled to notiona.l benehts and continuity of service. H,rwever, with regard to back-wages, thc respondents shall take a decision within a period of sx weeks ard communicate the same to the petitioner. 1 8. Acco: dingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of . There shall be no ordel as to costs. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any. shall stand closed. Date: 25.O1 .2021 Kkm LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J