The High Court · 2025

behalf of the petitioner and Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetitioner aDDroached the Court s ekinq oraver as under: "...to call for the records pertaining to Memo dated 28.11.2018 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to treat the whole period the petitioner was out of service as on duty with all consequential benefits such as fixation of pay, increments, other ancillary benefits by issuance of Writ of Mandamus more particularly any other Writ Order, or Direction in the interest of justice and pass..."

3. The case of the oetitioner, in brief, as oer the averments made bv the oetitioner in the affidavit bv the Detataoner in uDDort of the Dresent writ oetition, is as under: It is specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined as Assistant Engineer in the erstwhile the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APESEB) and the same was bifurcated into APTRANSACO AND APGENCO and APTRANSCO was further divided into distribution company and the petitioner was allotted -/_ t" i'j - 4 to APCPDCL (Andhra Pradesh Central Porlt: Distribution Company Limited). It is further the case of the petitioner ll at while the petitioner was working as Additional Engineer, K; vadiguda, the petitioner and two others were booked u r der Crime NO.3/ACB/CR 93 by the ACB on an allegation of <r rruption,. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation n December, 2012 to the Authorities concerned for reinstet lment of the petitioner into services, but the petitioner was no 'einstated and in the meanwhile, the petitioner. retired frr, -'t service on 31.03.2013 On an earlier occasion, the petitior:r approached this Court by filing W.P.No.23580 of 2015 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order, dated 26.04. 1018, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petit t ner for release of terminal benefits by duly taking into ccr sideration the recommendation of the state Government vi: : letter dated

24.10.2OL3 and pass appropriate orders within ir period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of copy of ll e order and in compliance to the said orders passed by this (l )urt, the order impugned, dated 28.11.2018 had been pas;:d by the 1't respondent. Aggrieved by the said action of the espondent, the Writ Petition is filed. I 5

4.P ERUSED THE RECORD: A The o er D UCr ned Memo.No. CGM(HRD)/GM(P er) /AS( DC),/PO(D -r)/3L4- cLt20 O2, dated 28.1 .2O18 issued bv the 1't res ondent is extracted hereunder:- Sri M.P.Suresh Asst. Engineer (Elec) was trapped by ACB orficials while he was working at Kavadiguda and a case was registered in Crime No.3/ACB/Cr-93 He was kept under suspension w.e.f. 19.12.94 pending enquiry into grave charges against them vide memo 1st cited. Subsequently as per the advice of the Government, Sri M.P.Suresh, Assistant Engineer was reinstated into duty without prejudice and subject to the outcome oF the criminal case pending against him in the Court of Principal Special .Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad vide memo 2nd cited.

2. In the reference 4th cited, final orders were issued to Sri M.P.Suresh, Assistant Engineer duly awarding punishment of "dismissal from service" as per the judgement order dt: 24.06.2005 in CC No.1 of 1995 of the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and in terms of Regulation 10 (5) (a) of APSEB Board Discipline and Appeal Regulations as adopted by ApCpDCL (Now TSSPDCL)

3. In the reference 5th cited the Hon'ble High Court in its Judgement dt:08.08.2012 in Criminal Appeat No. 1034 of 2005 has allowed the appeal filed by Sri M.p.Suresh, Assistant Engineer setting aside the conviction and sentences imposed against appellant accused by the Principal Special judge for SpE and ACB Cases, Civil Court, Hyderabad in C.C.No. 1of 1995,,.

4. In letter dt'.24.10.2013, the Government has informed that the matter has been examined in detail and concurs with provisional decision taken by the Chairman and Managing Director/APCPDCL and hence advised to take further action accordingly and release all the consequential benefits entiUed to Sri M.P.Suresh, Assistant Engineer as per rules. #1 I 6

5. As per the advice of the Government vide _r.No. 97 /Vig- Al/2013-3, d1.24.10.2013, suitable instructio-; have been issued to Superintending Engineer/O/South/ tyderabad to release pensionary benefits as per eligibility to ! ri M.p.Suresh, Ex.AE (Retirement dt.31.03.13) who was dismissr d from service while working as AE/O/Santhoshnagar/ South/-Tderabad duly treating the suspension period from 22.O4.199: to 29.01.1998 as suspension and the period from the date o[ dismissal i.e., 17.10.2005 to the date of retirement on supe r tnnuation i.e., 31.03.13 on service for purpose of computal i )n of pension without any back wages vide reference 7th cited, 6. Pursuant to the instructions oF Gov: -nment letter dt:24.10.2013, Sanction for payment of penl; tnery benefits (i.e., retirement, gratuity, commuted value () pension and superannuation pension) was Memo.No.CGM(HRD)/GM(IR, Legal & Adm)/AS(r:R & Ser)/pO- H/55-H2/2015, dt:16.04.2015. Thus the recommr ldations of the Government letter dtd.24.10.2013 stood complie: rivith. r:; ued

7. Sri M.P.Suresh in W.P.No.235B0 of 2015 soug I direction from Hon'ble High Court to treat the period of his :; spension from 22.04.1993 to 29.01.1998 as on duty and tf 3 period from 17.10.2005 to the date of retirement on sup(r annuation i.e., 31.03.2013 also as on duty for all practical pur: tses and to fix the pay and allowances etc. B. Sri M.P.Suresh, Ex-AE(Retd) has ir to submitted representation vide reference Bth cited, wl erein he has requested to treat his period of suspension 24.04.1993 to 29.01.1998 as on duty and the period kept out )F services i.e.. from the date of dismissal 17.10.2005 trr the date of superannuation i.e.. 30.03.2013 as on duty. 9. After careful examination of the reques, made by Sri M.P.Suresh, Ex-AE(Retd), he was informed vic r reference 9th cited, that his request for issuing retirement b I refits based on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court stood Ful'i led as per the recommendation of Government vide letter dt 4.10.2013 and the same holds good and no further orders car le issued since W.P.No.235B0 of 2015 is still pending before lte Hon'bte High Cou rt. 7

10. The Hon'ble High Court by its order dt:26.O4.2O18 in W.P.No.2358O of 2O15 directed the respondents (TSSpDCL and its officials) to consider the case of the petationer for release of terminal benefits duly taking into consideration the recommendation of the Government vide letter dated 24.10.2013 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of copy of the order.

11. Sri M.P.Suresh, Ex-AE(Retd) has submitted representation vide reference 1Oth cited duly enclosing copy of the ludgement dt:26.04.2018 of Hon'ble High Court, wherein he has requested for issuing oF the retirements benefits based on the judgement.

12. Sri M.P.Suresh also got issued notice dated 13.08.2018 through his advocate Sri, Sudheer Jonnalagadda vide reference 11th cited, reiterating his demand.

13. The Chairman & Managing Director/TSSPDCL having carefully examined the representation of Sri M.P.Suresh, Ex.AE (Retired) with reference to the material made available on record came to the conclusion the orders iss ed vide memo ino the su SDension oeriod from dt:27 1 1.2013 29.01.1998 as suspension and from the date of 22.O4.1993 dismissal i.e.. 17.10.2005 to the date of retirement on superannuation 31.03.2013 counting as service for purpose of computation of pension without any back wages are in consonance with Government recommendation. Hence the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Telangana & A.P. in its Judgement dt:26.04.2OL8 already stood complied with. Hence, the representation of Sri M.P. Suresh, deserved no consideration.

14. Consequently, notice vide reference 1lth cited was replied vide reference 12th cited stating that his representation has already been considered taking the recommendation of the Government vide letter dt:24.10.2013 into consideration. Hence unere is no need to issuing further orders. he rd r n ted 28. 18 issu l"t resoond ent as con rarv to the soecific recommendation rb heS overnmen B vide Lr.No.97/Vlq-AL/2O13-3, dated 24.LO.,1 )13 and the same is extracted hereunder:- C&MD, AP CPDCL vide reference 3rd citr:rl his provisional decision to treat the s r dismissal periods of S/Sri M.P. Suresh, A.: Line Inspector (Retd) AP CPDCL and sc concurrence of the Government to settle tr: benefits accordingly. has furnished ;cension and and S. Raja, ught for the consequential

2. The matter has been examined in ::tail and the Government agrees with the recommendat on of the DG ACB that there are no grounds for filing a; reals and also concurs with the provisional decision taker by the C&MD, AP CPDCL in the matter.

3. Therefore, the C&MD, AP CPDCL is hr rebv advired to take further action accordinqlv and r :lease all the consequential benefits entitled to S/S|i M.P. Suresh, A.F and S. Raia, Line Inspector (Retd'' AP CPDCL as DE r rules.

4. Action taken in the matte r be inti nated to the Government APVC and DG, ACB. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 5. The learned counsel apDearanq on ,ehalf of the petitioners mainlv puts-forth the followinq s ubmissignsin supDort of the Detationers case. That i) impugned Memo.No.CGM(HRD)/GM(Per)/AS(DC) I Polt tc-t) I 3L4- Ct /2OO2, dated 28.11.2018 issued by the .'t respondent is without application of mind and bereft of easons. 9 ii) The order impugned, dated 28.r1.2018 issued by the 1tt respondent is contrary to the specific recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the State Government vide Lr.No.97lVlg-AL/2OL3-3, dated 24-LO.2OL3 for release of terminal benefits to the petitioner. iai) There is no justification or reasoning in arriving at conctusion vide impugned Memo, dated 28.11.2O18 of the l"t respondent that the orders issued vide memo, dated 27.L1.2OL9 treating the suspension period from and from the 22.O 4.1993 to 29.01.1998 as susoenslon date of d ismissal i.e.. 17.LO.z OO5 to the ate of reti ment uDerannu tion 31. 03.2013 s servt u ntino on5 DUr moutatio n of oen ion wit out anv back s are nsonance with Govern ment I of the State recom mendation, since the bare oeru Government recommend at on indicates a Drovlsl onal !o s ens n r herei n conseouential b nefits entitled to the etitioner as Der r r rules. Based on the aforesai d submis sions, the !ea rned he oetitio ner contends behalf of t counse! aooearin oo n 10 that the order impuqned needs to be set-i1 ;ide and the Writ Petition should allowed as Draved for .

6. Learned counsel a DDeaflnq on behalf of t re oetitioner Dlaced reliance on the iudoments of the vi rious Courts enlisted below in suo rt of oetitioners' cas€ i - A. The iudomento the Aoex Court in tI reoali Gundu Surwase Vs.Kranti Junior Adhvaoak lr ahavidvalava (D.ED.) And Others oorted in (2O13) 1O S( C 324, dated

12.08.201 3 and in Da icular at Dara No. 2 2. _ ! is observed aS under:-

22. The very idea of restoring an employel to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee wil be put in the same position in which he would have be ln but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The r_ try suffered by a person/ who is dismissed or removed r is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily t) measured in terms of money. With the passing of an :-der which has the effect of severing the employer emplo/ )e relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried rr Not only the concerned employee, but his entire famil suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the sourc( ,tf sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancert ernt in Iife. At times, the family has to borrow from tlt I relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. I tese sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory f: um decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which I ; preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi jrrJicial body or Court that the action taken by the employ lr is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or t r I principles of / 11 natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments. B. The iudoment of the Aoex Court in Shobha Ra Ratu ri Vs. Harvan a Vidvut Prasa ra Niqam Limited r Dorted in (2016) 16 SCC 663, dated O9 .12.2015 and an Da rticular at oara No. it is observed a under;-

3. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement dated 31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, he would have readily discharged his duties. Having restrained him from rendering his services with effect from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005, the respondent cannot be allowed to press the self serving plea of denying him wages for the period in question, on the plea of the principle of "no work no pay". c The relev ment of this Court, dated 26.O4.2OL8 oassed in W.P.N o.2358 of ortion f Div on Bench 2015 is extracted her under:- Having learned considered the rival submissions made counsel on either side, this Court is OF L2 considered view that the respondents hav: not initiated any departmental enquiry against the petitio rer. Based on the conviction and sentence by the Principa ipecial Judge for SPE-ACB cases-cum-IV Additional Chi(' ludge, the petitioner was dismissed from service ,l t 17.7.2OO5, However, in view of setting aside the ,l nviction and sentence, the respondents are bound to re -consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement into s:rvice. As the petitioner has retired from service on attairrr rg the age of superannuation on 31.3.2013, he is entitl(r( for terminal benefits in view of the recommendation matl by the State Government vide Ietter dated 24.10.2013. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dispost d oF directing the respondents to consider the case of thr petitioner for release of terminal benefits by duly taking into consideration the recommendation o' the State Government vide letter dated 24.L0.2Q 3 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight 't :eks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The learned standing counsel appearinll the respondents on the other hand placing re averments made in the counter affidavit respondents, contends that the orders of thi; on behalf of iance on the 'iled by the Court, dated

26.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.2358O had bee in accordance to law and the orders impt 28.11.2018 had been Passed, dulY consideration the recommendation of n considered gned, dated taking into the State Government, vide proceedings, daled 24.11 .2O13 issued in favour of the petitioner and therefore, illegality in the impugned orders passeJ there is no hence the 13 petationer is not entitled for the retief as prayed for and the present Writ Petition needs to be dismissed.

8. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the period of suspension of the petitioner was between 1993 to 1998, the trial Court vide its judgment, dated 24.O6.20O5 passed in C.C.No.1 of 1995 had convicted the petitioner based on the said conviction order, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide proceedings, dated 17.01.2005 and the Criminal Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment, dated 24.O6.2OO5 of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases-cum-Iv Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad and the said Criminal Appea! Nos.1O34, 1036 &1087 of 2OO5 had been allowed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment, dated

08.08.2O12 and it is observed as under:- " Accordingly, the Criminal appeals are allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants- accused by the Principal Special Judge for SpE and ACB Cases, Civil Court, Hyderabad, vide judgment, dated 24.06.2005 in CC.No.1 of 1995. The final amount, if any. paid by the accused-appellants shall be refunded to them.

9. The petitioner made representation in December, 2Ol2 tor reinstatement of the petitioner and the petitioner retired on 31.O3.2O13 eventually and thq same had not l4 been considered, upon said representation ma Ce by the petitioner and other accused, vide lett:r' dated 28.06.2013 addressed by the 1't respondr: tt to the Principal Secretary to Government, Energy D€ partment,, vide proceedings, dated 27.11'2O13 of the 1't r:spondent' based on the directions/advice of the Govern.rlent, duly taking into account the verdict obtained in fir rour of the petitioner and released all the consequentia benefits in part entitled to the Petitioner' It is specific case of the petitionr r that the 10. suspension period from 1993 to 1998 anrl the period during which the petationer kept out of servict from 2OO5- 2o13needtobetreatedasondutyasthepttitionerwas kept out of service by the respondents for n'r fault of the petitioner, dulY considering the judgment obtained passed in favour of the Petitioner, dated 08.08.20:t ! of 2OO5, Criminal Appeal Nos.1O34, 1036 &1Ot; whereunder the petitioner had been a< quitted' but however the same had not been considered'

11. A bare perusal of the record indir:' tes that the criminal case registered against the petiti tner was the .J.**- 15 sole basis for suspending the petationer from 1995 to 1998 and dismissing the petitioner from 2OO5 to 2O13 and the said criminal case ended in acquittal, hence the respondents are bound to consider the period of suspension period trom 22.04.1993 to 29.01.1998 and dismissal period from 17.10.2005 to 31.03.2013 as on duty, as per the recommendation of the State Government, vide proceedings, dated 24.10.2013. L2, This Court opines that reinstatement of an employee into the service after being terminated on the charges should be understood as if the termination order had never been passed and so it must ordinarily lead to release of back wages to the employee as well.

13. Takino into c nsideration: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions put-forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. I r 16 d) The contents of the ordet impugned Memo.No.CGM(HRD)/GM(Per)/AS(DC)/P( (DC- f)t3L4-C1/2OO2, dated 28.11.2018 issued by the 1"t respondent (referted to and extracted ab( ve) The contents of the order impu rned, dated e) 28.11.2018 issued by the 1* respondent i; contrary to the specific recommendation made in f rvour of the petitioner by the State Government vide I r.No.97 /Vlg- AL/201-3-3, dated 24.10.2013 (refe' ed to and extracted above) f) The orders obtained in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.23580 of 2015, dated 26.O4.2018. The view of the iudqments of the vi rious Cou rts e) ( referred o and extracted above) and l rain enlisted below:- i) (2()13) 10 SCC 324 ii) (2016) 16 SCC 663 iii) Division Bench of this Court, datt d 26.O4.2O18 passed in W.P.No.2358 of 2O15 h) The discussion and conclusion as arrivetl at para Nos.S to 12 of the present order. I I The lmDuqned Memo- CGM(H RD)/GM(Per) /AS(DC)/PO( DC-r)/314-C L/2002, dated 2 .11.2018 issued bv the ltt resD ndent in the directions of this comoliance t €ourt, dated

26.O4.2(JL 8 oassed in W.P.N o.2358O of 2O15 is set-aside and the 1"t resoondent is darected to reconsider the reDresentation of the oe itioner, dated 23.05.2018. oertaininq to petitioner's soecific reouest to direct the resDon dents to treat the wh le oeriod. the oeti loner was out of dutv as on dutv with all conseouentia I benefits. dulv takino into consideration the observations made in the iudqments of the various Courts (referred to and extracted above), the soeci c recommendatio made in favour of the oetitioner. bv the State Govern ent vide d ted 24.1 2 u n o8.08.2(r 12 oassed in favour of the oetitioner i Criminal Aooeal os.1O34. 1O 3 5 lO87 of 2OOs nd Dass ADDrODriate reasoned ord oertainino to the uest of the oetitioner for treatinq the susoension oeriod of the Detitioner from 22.04.1993

29.01.1998 as on dutv with a II -^ftGarrr ii al ha nefits crrah Civ a +ion of e ents and other ancil! e efa 18 tn co!1 DT vidi qan formitv with orinci ples of natu ral - iustice, bv tv ofo erso al hea 'no to the u n icate the d cl:i on on the OD DEtition b er and ulv co d t e e ron h DOSe d of. However, there shall be no ordet : rs to costs. b n e L4. P tition is Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY/I I SD/. B. REKHA RANI .<iI ;TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ 1 To One fair coPY to the HON'BLE MRS JU Ttc (For His LordshiP's Ki SURt PALLI NANDA rus€ I The Chairman and Managing Director, Telangana Stet Power Distribution C."lpr"v r-tJ, tttint Comp-ouia, Behind Secrelariat, Hy erabad' in" 6ni.jt General Manager, Telangana State Power t stribution Company f-io, frlini co.pound, Beh-ind Secretariat' Hyderabad -. . iiri srpliint"i,oing Engineer, Telangana.S-tate Powc r fistribution Company r-io, lrlitit Compoun?, B6nind secretariat, Hyderabad 'l 1 L.R. Copies. TheUnder'Secretary'Unionoflndia'MinistryofLaw'usticeandCompany Affairs, New Delhi. f ne Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Lit r rry' High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. one,cd t,o sRl J.SUDHEER, Advocate tg8u-C-l- -sneeoHAR il; ca i" sni N TRANSCO) Advocate [OPUCI Two CD CoPies REDDY (sc FoR rE- \NGANA

2. 3 4 5 Cl 7 I o SA GJPw C.C. TODAY r{ 1 [Pff ?fl?fi :1 $ o C) ( * 'l HIGH COURT DATED:3011012025 ORDER WP.No.16061 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. aacuP{u} \+_, T6\-q'r" t r ...r- sisffi.