The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 3 ...PETITIONER ffiilf,.':ff l:'$:ti,fli( 'ft t1#'"i"[:Jpar secretary to Government, Home The Director General of police, Telangana State, Saifabad, Hyderabad. The Superintendent of police, Kamareddy Diskict, Kamareddy. "" " "i,'.ii'g- ,.Iffi o' th e petition under Article 226 ...RESPONDENTS -of the constitution.of India praying that in the crrcumstances stated in.the anioa,t1ir.i"i,#"*nn, the High court mav be pleased to issue an aDoropriate Writ, Ord-e"r ort"#"tion more particularly one in [ : iJ l[: r"ir{fl "J#;:::,T:' i rd Res po n o e n t i n s o B*,,#hff T*:rrir#ss{i,-i;ll;fl ffl*}{]:FifiL1ilIir# Petitioner was quashed o1 Tglt-. by tni."iont]" rourt vide Judgment rendered in criminar petition No. 2386 of 2021 ilitio )g-flrziiland further not rereasinq the rncrements, which fefl 0r".1:Iq tn. "rrp"r"i"n-i!i,o0,.", heing arbitrary, iltEgar, unjust' contrary to the orovisions of Fundamentri i"rr" No. 24 and the (irders- of this Honbte Court in similar cases ;;i'1ffi;. be pteased to direct the Respondents to treat ffre arorementi"""j'p"riJl'"i'.u.p.rrio, as on dutv for ail purposes and to rerease increments wtricn ierr JuJuring the period of susfiension in terms of Fundamentat nub ruo. z+ in i"r.,"'ini."rllt"o.irr.,,"" IANO:1OF 2023 -3 Petition under Sectir ti:nTsiri'JsiJ[" *!{,[.i,:lt,{",ffllt'pr,,,r,T;lf#iH*;#i.l 10-2010 to 06-06-2015 i.e, the period of suspens'ton on the zrnalogy of Orders iundamental Rule No' 24du v suspending the ir"ili"ov tnl. Hor'bte cor.t ooeration of the imr:ugreo pio"""aingt issued by the 3rd Restrrondr:nt vide D'O' L::;d; i.]'lr'U .'ip6r.r',rninsr Han.r6n-pnrza3hon) dated 0(,/04/11023 in so rar as it retates to the treatnlent of suspension period is concerned "ni

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' D SUDHARSHAN Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER ) HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT P ON No.172O ot 2fJ23 ORD ER: Heard Sri D.Sudharshan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The oeti ioner aooroache the Court seeki nq oraver as under: "...to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3'd respondent in so far as treating the suspension period from 24.tO.zOtO to 06.06.2015 as "Not on Duty" vide impugned proceedings D.O.No.401 (File No.: DPOKMR/As/MAJOR-PR/283/2023) dated 06.04.2023 though the criminal case filed against the Petitioner was quashed on merits by this Hon'ble Court vide Judgment rendered in Criminal Petition No.23B6 of 2021 dated 29.11.2022 and further not releasing the increments, which fell due during the suspension period, as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the provisions of Fundamental Rule No.24 and the Orders of this Hon'ble Court in similar cases and further be pleased to direct the Respondents to treat the aforementioned period of suspension as on duty for all 2 SN, J wP 17208 2021 purpcse:; and tO release increments which fr:ll due durir g tire period of suspension in terms of Fundamental Rule No. 24 in the interest of justice and to pe ss ...,.

3. The cast: of the petitioner, in brief, is that w rile ,,vorking as Police Constable, Armed Reserve at AR Hqrs, Nizanabad, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide pro(eedings dated 22.10.2071 cn the ground of alleged involvemen,: in a criminal case in Cr Nc. 289/2OlO. Later on, the petitione-,s suspension was revoked ,:n 06-06-2015 and reinstated intc service with immediate effect. Due to personal and unavoidablt: reersons, the petitioner could not attend his duties and was dt:clared a deserter with effect from 15-07-2010 vide proc€,edings dated 24-09-20L0. However, the petitioner was taken back into service and place d under suspension vide proceeJingr; dated 22.t0.207a. In co tne(:tion to the period referred where the petitioner was absent, di:;ciplinary proceedings were initiatecj against the petitioner v de r:harge memo dated O}.OL.2Ol2 alleling that the petitioner h:d failed to perform his duties and wa:; in!,olved in Cr. No. 2t9/?_r)IO. Though the petitioner,s nante \^/as not mentioned irr thr: F.I.R., it was added in the charge r;heet filed in Cr. No. 289/2ClO and thus, the petitioner was arrayed as I 3 SN, J wP 11208 2023 Accused No. B in Sessions Case No. 692 of 20lg.Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner fired criminar petition No. 23g6 of 202r to quash the said criminal case and this court vide judgment dated 29-11-2022 quashed the criminal case pending against the. petitioner in S.C. No. 692 of 2018 pending on the file of the Hon'ble XV Additional District and Sessions Judge_cum_II Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. It is further the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the said judgment dated 29.11.2022, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 2g.03.2023 to the 3.dRespondent stating that the criminal case pending against the petitioner is quashed by the judgment dated 29.11.2022 and that the increments were not released during suspension. However, the 3'd Respondent issued impugned proceedings D.O. No. 401 (File No.:DPOKMR/ASIMAJOR-pR/ 283/2023) dated 06.04.2023 imposing a major penarty of postponement of increments for two years with effect on future increments and pension. Further, the desertion period from L5.O7.2OtO to 23.10.2010 is treated as L.W.P. and the suspension period of 4 years, 7 months and 14 days with effect from 24.LO.2OLO to 06.06.2015 is treated as "Not on Duty". Therefore, the action of the 3.d Respondent in treating the period of suspension as ',Not on Duty,, is arbitrary, I I) ( -_--<_-_--*-'_._ 4 SN, J r,vP t?208 2021 i illegal and unjustified. Aggrieved by proceeding; dated 06.O4.2023, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. PERT'S THE R D (A) Th IA leva ntn rtion of impuqned proceedi nos dated

06.04.2023 issued Su perinte nt of Po ice, Kamareddv the 3'd Resoondent herein.iti se ed as under: Whereas, in his representation dated 28.03.202.1, he has statel that after his suspension from service, he had approached the ATAT and filed petition for is:;uing the direc':ion:; to the concerned to reinstate hint into service from su:;pension and as such he was re:instated into servi,le. Soon after his reinstatement, he had vvithdrawn his petitirrn before the Hon'ble APAT. Later, :he ,\PAT was merged into the Hon'ble High Court. The distlosal order of his ra ithdrawal petition was not obtained frorn the Hon'ble Couri:. Hence, he requested to issue final clispc'sal order dropllinq the further action in the disciplinarT prr:ceedings pend ng against him. An<J whereas, I have gone through the 'indings of OE whiclr held proved, Final explanation of char,;e officer and other corrnected records carefully. The endor;emr:nt of the then Suterintendent of Police, Kamareddy e nd lbund the punishmont proposed by the then Superintenrlent of Police, Kamrrred,Jy holds good. / 5 SN, J wP t?208 2023 Now therefore, the penalty of "PPIf on f ture !ncre e n with eff lmposed on Sri G.Gopal, AR pC 389 formerly of AR Hqrs., Nizamabad and now working at Kamareddy and b rtw vears ension" IS e o f w t treate as L.w.P vears, (7 month an ) a s o ot 1 t e u DE ns!o d o o Ois 2 Deriod of( 4) t4 davs with effe r o n 1 t 1 Dutv"- "Certified that the APCS(CC&A) Rutes, 1991 been stricUy followed in proceeding.,, procedure laid down in the (TS Adaptation Orders) have disposal of the disciplinary (B) cou n nb ehalf Dondents 1 to 3.i n DA rticula r, Dar No a f nd the rel evantoo ron atDara hereu nder: N o.9 an d ra No- 11, ts extra "5 The petitioner has joined in the police De partment as Armed Reserve police Constable on 14.10.1995 in erstwhile Nizamabad District. previously he has worked at Interligence security wing, Hyderabad. whire he was working in Intelligence Security Wing, Hyderabad, petitioner has absented from duties unauthorisedly from 15.07.2010 while on availment of CL and public holiday from 09.O7.2OIO to I4.O7.2OlO and was therefore \ 6 SN, J wP 17208 2023 '..1 declar:d as deserter with effect from 15'07'2C10 vide DO No.17'1512010 (No.A3/LR/t3l2OlO), dated 2'l'09'2010 of the Supe"intendent of Police, Nizamabad l)istrict' The petitioner himself admitted that owing to fan'ily problems he had arsented from duty unauthorisedly and became deserter. Meanwhile, the petitioner has involvec in Criminal Case 'ride Cr. No.2B9/2010 U/sec 364-A,384 r'lw :14 IPC of Miyap,rr PS of Cyberabad, Hyderabad. The cas: was charge sheetr:d ergainst all the accused including t 1e tretitioner vide S;C Nlo.692 of 2018 before the Hon'ble )(V Additional Distri<:t arnd Sessions Judge-cum-II Addit onal Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. In this connection, a Preliminary l:nqu iry was 7. conductec by the Inspector of Police, DTC, Nia zamabad and'ras submitted his PE report dated 2l'06'2OL3' Furthr:r, the Oral Enquiry against the petitiorler has been initiat3d ernd the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kamareddy was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who has ccndur:ted Oral Enqui'y and submitted his findings as "PROVED", beyond any -easonable doubt, vide his report No'157/SDPO- K/201 4, cated 28.02.2014.

9. ...Ho submitted that as per the judgment oF Hon'ble High Cout acquitting his name on the grourtd of beyond reasonable doubt, his name cited in the Trial Court was quasr ed Fur-l:her, in his representation dated 28 03.,1023 it is state(l that after his suspension from service, he has filed 7 7 SN, J wP.17208 2023 I.A. No. 774/2OtS in OA No. 5S2)/2OL4, dated 17.09.20L4 before the Hon,ble ApAT, Hyderabad for issuing the directions to the concerned authority to reinstate him into service from suspension. He was reinstated into service from suspension vide Order No.3377/2015 (c.No.46_28lpR/2010), dated 06.06.2015 of the Superintendent of police, Nizamabad. Soon after his reinstatement, he has withdrawn his petition before the Hon'ble ApAT, Hyderabad. Finally, the criminal case against him was ended in acquittal. Hence, he requested to issue orders dropping further action against him consequent on acquittal by the Hon,ble High Court, duly regularizing his period of suspension as "On Duty".

11. It is submitted that after disposal of disciplinary proceedings imposing the penalty and treating the desertion and suspension period as Leave without pay and Not on Duty respectively, there is no question of rereasing of increments which were not released during such period. But the petitioner has the right to prefer an appeal to the next level authority to review the penalty imposecl against him and to set-aside the penalty or otherwise. But, the petitioner has filed this Writ petition before the Hon,ble Court, without exhausting the relief available in the department. It is further submitted that mere acquittal/ discharge in criminal case does not entitle the petitioner to treat the suspension period as on duty as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GHMC. Vs. M.prabhakar Rao (2011) B.scc 15s." 8 SN, J \\P t7208 2023 '..1 (c) fbc-r€leyant-Parc s. 3 and N 4 of the Judqment dated 29.L L.20 2oassedin Crl.P 2021 in favtl-Ur-ot tfre oetitioner' eunder: "3. -Ihe (:ase of the prosecution is that it was A1 vuho had master minded the abduction of the victim witf the help of A2 to i\15. The name of this petitioner/A8 does nct figure in the =IR as an accused. It is not mentioned itr ther charge sheet i)s tc) how this petitioner was included as an accused apart trom the confession of other accused' Ttere was no Test ldentification Parade proceedings to identify this petitiorer. Firstly the absence of the narre of this petitioler in the FIR, secondly, not mentioninr; thr: details as to how this petitioner was identified as orte ol' the 14 persons who helped A1 and thirdly for the r€:ason of this Court fincling that the entire case was fatlricated and procet:din1;s were quashed against A1 wlto rvas the mastermirld and led the accused to abduct the vi(:tim' the proce+:dinr3s against this petitioner are llable to be quashed.

4. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allcwed and the proce.:dings against the petitioner-accused No' 3 in SC No.692 o'2018 on the file of XV Additional District and t -t+ 9 *r-,r0, !ilii Sessions Judge_cum_IlAdditional Family Judge, Reddy District at Kukatpally, are hereby quashed.,, Ranga o U 5 It is the specific case ot the petitioner that a detailed representation dated 2g.03.2023 addressed to the 3d respondent herein was made requesting the respondent to issue orders dropping further action against the petitioner consequent to the acquittal order passed by this Court vide Judgment dated 29.L..2022, and for duly regularizing the period of suspension of the petitioner as ,.On_Duty,..

6. A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 06.04.2023 issued by the 3.d respondent clearly indicates that the grievance of the petitioner as put forth by the petitioner vide the petitioner,s representation dated 28.03.2023 had not been considered. As per FR_ 548 sub rule (5) of Fundamental Rules, the competent authority was under an obrigation to take a decision regarding suspension period as per the parameters laid down in sub-rule (5) of FR_548, and the 3.d respondent admittedly as borne on record did not take any decision as per Sub rule (5) of FR_548 nor any reasons are assigned in rejecting the request of the petitioner to drop Further action against the 10 SN, J wP rt208_2023 petitioner conseqrlent to the acquittal of the petitioner by this Court vidrr Ju<19ment dated 29'Lt'2022 and for rt:gularising the period of suspr:nsion of the petitioner as on duty' r r u der: 5 o F Sub rule (5 "(5) In :as€s other than those falling under sul-rules (2) and (31 the Government servant shall' subj(lct to the provisionscrfsub.rules(8)and(9)bepaidSUchamount (not be ng l:he whole) of the pay and allowances to which he wou d h,ave been entitled had he not been suspended' as the cornpetent authority may determine' trfter giving notice to the Government servant of the : qtlantum proposed and after considering the re presental:ion ' if any' submitt:ed by him in that connection within :;uch period (which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the Cate on which ':he lotice has been served) as may be sper:ified in the notrice. '

7. A division bench of this Court in its Judgment W.P.No.64O5 of 2O19 in "A' Shiva Kumar Lal v' State of Telangana'', considering the case wherein rlisciplinary proceedings had concluded imposing a minor penalty held that the periocl of suspension should be treatedl as on duty with full pay and allowances' This Court opines that the 3'd respondent pasr;ed the impugned orders without co rsidt:ring the Fundamental RLrles 548(5)' II 8 "Y a v c n f o a 4 aPr s a P s f I wp-r?roE_:ilii h o I concerned '8, So far as the salary for the period of suspension is the petitioner should be paid full salary. A minor penalty has been imposed u pon the petitioner. The pun is hment is so light and therefo re the petitioner could not be saddled with the heavier pe nalty of depriving him the salary for the suspension pe flod. This part of the impugned order is not a speaking order. No reasons have been assigned for depriving the petiti oner of his salary for the sus pension period. e n f n a n f s in term of F. td th re re be b wholl stifie e b Ui Ui a d lnq a Th ncerned h 4- he em f and allowances for the oeriod of susDe nsron YDass 54-8. e t en al R e G o er unde r Fun a e ployeesis IUStandreasonab le and its hou rdb follo wed The OV rn Jabalpur Development Authority is also instrumentality and it will also be governed by interpretation of rule 54_B of the Fundamental Rules. tn tru en the S n ral e e a f 12 SN' I wP 17208 2021

9. The petition is partly allowed' It is dismissed against that ptrrt of the impugned order by which tht: perralty of withho dinq of one increment has been imposr:d upon the petitio'1er. The respondents are directed to pay full salary of th€ petitioner for the suspension period within two montl^s."

11. Ttre Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh Higir Couft in State of Madhya Pradesh v' Shailendra followed thr: said view.:akeninY.S.Sachan(supra),SimilarVie./,/istakenby this C.our'1: in A' Shiva Kumar Lal (supra)"'

9. A bare perusal of the ludgment dated 29' 1-L'2O22 passed in Crl,P.No'2386 of 2021 in favour of the petitioner indicatesthatthepetitionerhadbeenacquitteclbeyond reasonable doubt from the charge sheet filed before the trial Court. 1fhis Court opines that the fact as borne on record, is that the order impugned passetl by the 3'd respondent dated O6.04-2023, is without assigning any reasons and also without considering the Judgment of this Court dated 29 .LL.2O22 passed in Crl'P'No'i1386 of 2O21 whereunder the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/A8 in S.C.No-692 of 2018 on ttre file of XV Additionar District and sessions Judge-cum-lr Additional Fat:n|ty Judge, Ranga been guashed. Reddy District at Kukatpally, l3 SN. J wP _t72oE_2023

10. Ta ino tnto consl d atton: r (i) case, The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the (ii) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents I to 3 (referred to and extracted above), ('ii) FR-548 sub rute (5) of Fundamentat Rutes, (iv) The Judgment of the Madya pradesh High Court in "Y.S, Sachan v. State of Madhya pradesh,,, reported in 2OO3 SCC Ontine Mp 432 and also the Judgment in W.P.No.64O5 of 2Ol9 in ..A. Shiva Kumar Lal v. State of Tetangana,,, (v) The Judgment dated 2g.li..2()2| passed in Crl.P.No.23g6 of 2O2t in favour of the petitioner, The Writ petition is afiowed and the impugned proceedings dated 06.o4.2o2g passed by the 3.,, respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 3'd respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put forth vide petitioner,s representation dated 28.03.2023 addressed to the respondent, in 3t' accordance to law, duly considering the Rule 54-B of Fundamental Rules and also the observations of the I I l i4 SN, J u'P 17208-2023 Judgment of the Madya Pradesh High Court in "Y'S' Sachan v. State of Madhya Pradesh"' reported in 2OO3 SCC Online t4P 432and the ludgment in W'P'No'64O5 of 2019 in "A. Shiv;r Kr'rmar Lal v' State of Telangana"' within a period of four (o4) weeks from the date of rr:ceipt of a copy of this order by providing an opportunity r)f personal apProPriate orders hearing to the Petitioner and Pass petitioner's rePresentation dated 28.O3'2O23 upon the seeking tcr drop further action against the petitioner consequent tc' the acquittal order passed by this Court vide Judgrnent dated 2g.tt.2fl22, dulY regu'larizing the petitioner's period of suspension as "On-Dut!'"' and duly communicate the decision to the petitionel" However' there shall be no order as to costs' Theniscellaneousapplications,ifanypending,slallStand closed. SDl- T-.TIR EIEPUTY REGIS, RAR ,TTRUE COPY'/ SECTTON OFFICER To, 2 1 The Prrn';ipal Secretary to Government' Home Departrnent' Secretariat' T S' T[lil'::". General or Police' Telangana state' sairatrad' rrvderabad' The Superintendent of Police' Kamareddy District' Kanrareddy' One CC to SiRI D SUDHARSHAN Advocate IOPUC] Two ccs tc, Gp FoR Horrae ,Higt, court for the state of rolangana [our] 5 6. Two Ct CoPies

4. J q K PS i l i I HIGH GOURT DATED:10 t$3t2025 CCTODAY /'a -.-ori"' rAT€ o q 11 lPfl N'6 v o -L .I t ORDER WP.No.17208 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 2r