The High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt., S.C. Development Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. The Commissioner/Director, S.C. Development Department, State of Telangana, DSS Bhavan, lvlasa Tank, Hyderabad. The Accountant General (A and E), State ofTelangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ Mandamus declaring the entire action of the respondents particularly the entire action of the 1't respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner and treating the suspension period as on duty under FR-54 (B)(3) and in issuing the present impugned Memo No 2238|SCD Vig 12021 dt 15.03. 2022, wherein treating the suspension period not on duty by quoting FR-54 (B)(3), instead of treating the suspension period as on duty under FR-54 (B)(3) despite of clean acq u itta l/d ischa rge from the criminal proceedings initiated in CC No 61 of 201 5 in Crime No 15/ACBWRL/2012 in Crl RC No 2912020 dt 18.05.2020 of this Hon'ble Court on considering the material on record, this court is of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner the Hon'ble Court made it very clear finding that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges leveled against him is as highty illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, an excess jurisidiction colourable exercise of power, '/indictiv(: attitude, non application of minc, contrary to provisions of FR54 B contrarl, principles laid down the relerred jtrdgments are squarely covered order of the present case and however, wirile passing of the GO Rt No 96/SCD-Vig Department dt 01072021, the 1't reslondenl has not applied his mind and there is nc mention as to whether the period from 30.11 .2012 lo 31 .O3.2014 is tb be treat<:d as on duty or not, though re was supposed to pass an order under sub-rule(7) as stated in the GO Rt Dt 01072A21. the same has not been done ancl consequently pray this Hon'ble Cou rt to s€ t aside or quash the present impugned Memrr No 2238lSCD Yig 12021 dl 15.O3.')O22 of the 1"t respondent, b) Further hold tl-at the petitioner herein is en:itled for regularization of suspension period betweerr 30.11.2012 lo 31 .O3.2O14 by trerrting the same as on duty under FR-54 (B)(3)for all the purposes in view ol acquittal/discharge from the criminal proceer.lings initiated in CC No 61 of 2O1l in Crime No 15/ACBWRL|2O12 in Crl RC No 2912020 dt 18.O5.2020 of this on'ble Court c And consequently to direct the: respondents to treat the sus,pensio r period between 30.11.2012 to 31 .0:3.2014 as on duty under FR-54 (B)(3) for al the purposes in view of clean acquittal/drsr.;harge from the criminal prrceedir gs initiated in CC No 61 of 2015 in Crime No 1S/ACBWRL/2012 ir Crl RC No 2912020 dt 18.05.2020 of this Hor'ble Court (Prayer is amende I as per C.O dl. 1610912022 in lA 02 of 2022'.t lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petiticrn unde r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circulnstances stated in the affida vi1 filed in support of the petition, the High Court mz y be pleased to direct the rr:spondcnts to treat the suspension period betweerr 30 11.2012 to 31 .03.2014 rs on c uty under FR-54 (B) (3) for all the purposes in view of clean acqu ittal/d isr:h a rge irom the criminal proceedings initiateri in CC I,lo 61 of 2015 in Crime No '51ACB WRL/2012 in Crl RC No 2912020 dt 18-t.)5-2020 of this Hon'ble Col rt by s uspending the operation of the present impugned Memo No 2238|SCD \lig 12021 dt 15-03-2022 of the 1st respondent, penrling disposal of the main Wr t Petition (lnterim Prayer is irmended as per C.O dt. 1610912022 in lA 03 ot 2O22 ) lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ Mandamus to declare the action of the l st respondent treating the suspension period of the petitioner not on duty vide Govt. lvlemo No. 2238/SCD (Vig) Department Dt. 15103t2O22, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, discrimination, u nconstitutional and void, being contrary to the FR.54-B, hence prays to set aside the Govt. [\/emo No. 223BISCD (Vig) Department Dt. 15t03t2}22 and consequently direct the Respondents, to treat the suspension period from 30.11.2012 to 3110312014 under FR. 54-B "as on duty" for all purposes with all consequential benefits. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Govt. lt/lemo No. 223B1SCD (Vig) Departm enl Dt. 1510312022' consequently direct the Respondents, to treal the suspension period from 30t1112012 lo 31tO312O14 under FR. 54-B "as on duty" for all purposes with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. R. PRABHAKAR PARTY- IN. PERSON Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES V The Court made the following: ORDER . Il HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA R TP T TI N 6 5 F o22 ORDERl

Heard Sri R.Prabhakar, party-in-person/petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-V' appearing rtn behalf of the respondents'

2. The r praye-g-a51rnder: a he heC rt . -f"f '...Under these circumstances' it is just and necessirf-y in the interest of justice that this Hor'ble iiigh a,,rrt may be pleased to issue a Writ' orde:r or ,jiri.t-.i more particularly one in the natur:r of o,..rOuu,rus declaring the entire ar:tion of the i,,v'rit -espon lents particularly the entire action ot tn') r-' -"=-p".c""t in rejecting the request of the.petiti()ner and trtrating the suspension period as on duty urrder in-s+tslt:i and in issuing the present-impu1:lned M;;"' (;. z73l/scD.vis /zozt dt' Ls-03-2c22' *f,"rein treating the sus[ension period not on duty ov qr rti.g FR-t4(B) (7), instead of tr^eating the r,ltJut"io'i period ut bn duty under FR- 54-3(3)' OLspit,: of clean acquittal/discharge -from Irinlinrr pioceedings initiated in cc No 61 of 2015 15/ACB-WRLi 2012 ', Crl.RC.No.29 l2O2O dt' 1B-05-2020 of this Hcn'ble Court on considering the material on record' this ;;;ri ; of the view that no prima facie case is nade "ri u,tuintt the petitioner (the Hon'b1e Court rnade clear finding that the petitioner wa:'; not [- guiity 'of the charges leveled against him) is as tighli irr"gur, arbiirarv, violation 9j orinciol 's of . naturitl justice, an excess jurisdiction, colotlrable exerc se of power, vindictive attitude' non Crime No ";t; . 2 SN,-' wp_25605 _2022 application of mind, contrary to provisions o-f FR- i+is) contrary principles laid down the referred judgements are squarely covered order of the pr"iunt case and however, while passing-of the bo.nt.Nto.solscD-vig Department dt. ol-07-2021, the 1't respondent has not applied his mind and there is no mention as to whether the period from 30-11-2012 to 31-03-2014 is to be treated as on duty or not, though he was supposed to pass an order under sub-rule(7) as stated in the GO.Rt.Dt.o1- 07-2021, the same has not been done and consequently pray this Hon'ble Court to set aside or quash the present impugned Memo No' )zlalsco.'.vig.lzozt dt.15-03-2012 of the 1't respondent, lb) Further hold that the petitioner herein is entitled for regularization of suspension feriod between 30-11-2012 to 3L-O3-2014 by treating the same as on duty under FR-54(B) (3) for in view of acquittal/discharge -from all the ihe criminal proceedings initiated in CC No 61 of 2015 in Crime No. 15/ACB-WRL/2012 in Crl' RC No' )slzozo dt. 18-05-2020 of this Hon'ble Court (c) And consequently to direct the respondents to treat the suspension period between 30-ll-2}72 to 31- O3-2O14 as on duty under FR-54(B) (3) for all the purposes in view of clean acquittal/discharge from [ne'crlminat proceedings initiated in CC No' 61 of 2015 in Crime No. 1s/ACB-WRL/2012 in Crl'RC No' 29/2020 dt. 1B-05-2020 of this Hon'ble Court" -purposes

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that when the petitioner was working as an Assistant Social Welfare Officer in Mahabubabad, one Md. Muneeruddin lodged a comPlaint the petitioner had against the petitioner alleging that a criminal demanded bribe. Based on the said complaint' case was registered on 30.11'2012 under Crime No.1s/ACB j 3 SN,J wp_,i5605_2022 WRL/2012 by the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Warangal Division. Tre petitioner was arrested and placeJ under suspr:nsion with effect from 30.11.2012 vide pro:eedings Rc.No.l1l9! 15/2012 dated 04.12.2012.' -he petitioner's susponsion .ontinued throughout the period leading up to his retirement on 3L.03.2074 and the petitioner',vas not regularized as "on duty" despite being acquittecl of the crimirral chr rges in the year 2O2O and the suspensicrn period was treate(l as "Not on Duty", and accordingly sr,:ttled as available leirve as per G.O.Rt.No.96, dated 0i.07.20.;ll of the Resp,rndent No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the petitic:ner filed review pe1 ition dated 01 .12.2021 and the r3viewing authority/Sr:cretary to Government, SCDD, vrde ordrrrs dated L5.0:\.2022 rejected the review petition by u pholding G.O.f{t.No.96 dated 01.07.2021. Aggrieved by the s,3me, the petiticner fi ed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A Government issued G.O.Rt.No.96, SCD (VIG), dated O1.07.2O2L is extracted hereunder:- 1, Sri R. Prabhakar, Assistant Social \^/elfare Officer, Mahabubabird and District Social Welfare Officer (F,'\C), O/o the Deputy Director (SW), Warangal District was caught red- r 4 :l sN,l wp _25605_2022 handed in a trap case by the Anti Corruption Bureau Officials on 30.11.2012 when he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.15,O0O/- as bribe from the complainant Sri Mohd' Muneeruddin, Hostel Welfare Officer, SW Boys Hostel, Hanamkonda, Warangal District for showing official favour to process the promotion file and for issuing orders of the complainant. He was arrested on 30.11.2012. Accordingly, in the reference 2nd read above, Sri R.Prabhakar, Assistant Social Welfare Officer was placed under suspension w'e'f' 30.t7.20t2.

2. In the reference 3rd read above, Government have accorded sanction for the prosecution of Sri R.Prabhakar, Assistant Social Welfare Officer & FAC District Social Welfare Officer. Warangal District for the offences punishable under Sections 7,L3 (L) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. In the reference 4th read above, the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad has made ihe following order dt. 18.5.2020 in Criminal Revision Case No. 29/2020: "...the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order, dt.13.11.2019, passed In Crl. M.P. No. L62/2017 ln C.C.No. 61 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Speedy trial of the Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department etc., Nampally, Hyderabad is hereby set aside...."

4. In the reference 5th read above, R. Pra bha kar, submitted a Assistant Social Welfare Officer (Retd) representation to regularize his suspension period as on duty from 30.11.2012 to 31.3.2014 with all consequential benefits and to release all-pensionary benefits. Sri

5. In the reference 7th read above, Government have permitted the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, ielangana State, Hyderabad to file the Special Leave Petition befor6 the Supreme Court of India against the orders of Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad In Criminal Revision Case No' 29/2020, dt.18.5.2020 In CI.M.P.No. L62/2017 in C.C.No.6U2015 in respect of Sri R.Prabhakar, Assistant 5 SN,J wp_.25605_2022 Social Wel'are OFficer & District Social Welfare Offi:er (FAC) (Retired ), l,laha bubabad, Warangal District.

6. The Director General, Anti corruption Bureau, -l'elangana State, Hyd:rabad has informed that the Advocate-on-Record, Govr:rnmerrt of Telangana, New Delhi Vide letter dt.113.3.20,11 has informed that on 70.3.202L, thi: Hon'ble Supreme (.ourt of India heard the SLP, issued not ce to the Respondents(AO) after admitting the SLP (C;RL) No. 99ri2027.

7. Irr the reference 6th read above, the Hon'ble Hiqh Court, Hydr:rabad has made the following order dt.25.!).2020 in W.P. No. 1 5 .39 /2020 as follows: "...this writ petition can be disposed of dii-ecting the respc ndents to consider the representations :,ubmitted by the petitioner on 28.5.2020 and 9.6.2020 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Iaw within a perio I of three months from the date of rec:eipt of a copy of the order. " B. In the reference Bth read above, the Comrrissioner, Scheduled 3astes Development, Telangana State, Hyderabad has -eques:ed the Government to issue necessary rlrders on the orders of Honble High Court in Wp.No. t5'..39/ZO2O dt.2:;.9.20r 0 filed by Sri R.Prabhakar to avoid further legal comt)lications as the individual was retired on 3I.3.n14.

9. Governnrent after careful examination of the enti .e matter in dr:tail ard in terms of orders of the Hon'ble Court in W.P.\o. L5139/2020, dt.25.9.2020 hereby order to regularize the susperrsion period of R.prabhakar, Assistart Social Welfare Officer (Retd) from 30.11.2012 to 31.3 2014 as available le ave and also to release pensionary, b€)nefits him cending finalization of SLp before the Supreme Court of / /Inaia.

10. The (lommissioner, Scheduled Castes Development, Telarrgana State, Hyderabad is requested to takr,r further nece:;sary irction accordingly in the matter and furnish the action takerr report to the Government. I 6 SN,.J wp_25605_2022 ,- a, :i: B. The releva nt Do ion of the or er of this Court. 15139 ot 2O2Ois

9.202 DassedinW dated 25. .P.No. extracted hereu nder: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on Ze.OS.ZOZO and 09.06.2020 and also direct the respondents to release pension and other.pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules' Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that no other criminal proceedings or any departmental proceedings are pending agiinst the petitioner' Since the representations of tf,e petitioner are pending' the respondents would consider the same and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with the Rules within a reasonable period of time. This Court, having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties' is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the pltiti"n.r on zb.os.zo2o and o9'06'2o20 and iri. ipp."priate orders in accordance with law of three months from the date of iriUrln receipt of a coPY of this order' o ron fth im -u'p.iioa ln s resD ondent No. Memo D 2 2t n h 15 3.2 2 d s e her c o.2 7 SN,J wp_:15605_2022 "Sri R. Prabhakar, Assistant Social Welfare 3fficer (Retired), Mahabubabad and District Social Welfar,: Officer (FAC), O/o the Deputy Director ISW), Warangal District was trapped by the Anti Sorruption Bureau Officials when he demarrded :ribe 'or showing official favour to process the lromcl.ion file of the complainant. He'was arrested and p aced under suspension w.e.f. 30.71,.2072. Soverr ment have accorded sanctibn for the lrosec rtion of Sri R.Prabhakar, Assistant S,)cial y'Velfari: Officer (Retired) & FAC District S,:tcial ',,A/elfarr: Officer, Warangal District for the offerces runish rble under Sections 7, 13 ( 1 ) (ci) read /vith :iectior 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, t9BB r,ide G.O.Ms.No. 46, SW(Ser.III.1) Dept., Dt. )-7.4.2t)L4.

2. Sri R.Prabhakar, Assistant Social We fare (ffficer (Retd) has submitted a representation Dt. dt.28.5.2020 and 9.6.2020 requesting to treat the period of his suspension from 30.i1,2012 to .ll .3.21)14 as "on duty". it was examined and as per l:he riirections of the Hon'ble Court in \,^/.P.Nc.15139/2020, Dt.25.9.2020, orders !,/ere issued treating the period of suspension of Sri Il.Prabhakar, ASWO (Retired) from 30.11.201.,1 to '.i7.3.21)14 as available leave and also to release the I)ensioilary benefits to Sri R.prabhakar, ASjWO (Retd) pending finalization of SLp before the liuprente Court of India in the reference L.t cited

3. Now, In the reference 2nd cited, the individual has filed review petition requestinq to regular ze his period of suspension from 30.11.2012 to 31.3.2014 as "on duty".

4. Governm ent have examined !nattel ndeta it and infrom that since the ca se has n tbe en oroved. the individual has been does n ac ur ation. Therefore susDensron oeriod as "Not on Dutv" under FR 54 7 tantam 1 SN,J wp_256O5_2022 and accordinolv settled as availab le leave as per G.O.Rt.No. 96, Dt:Ol. 7.202L.

5. Hence, his reouest for treatino the "fr 3().LL.2OL2 to 31.03. o1 4 c not feasible." D. The Counter affidavit has been file on behalf of the resDondent No.2 and in oartibular, pa rao ra oh Nos.19, o.31 &32oft e counter of affidavit a re hereu nd e "19. Further it is submitted that, the Government vide G,O.Rt.No.96, SCD (Vig), Dept., dt.Ol.O7.202l issued orders to regularize the suspension period of Sri R.Prabhakar, ASWO (Retd) from 30.11.2012 to 31.03.2014 as available leave and also to release pensionary benefits to him pending finalization of SLP before the Supreme Court of India.

20. The Commissioner (SCDD) vide Procgs.Rc.No.F]-,/e-7177006/2021, dl-26.70.2021, has sanctioned half pay leave to Sri R.Prabhakar, ASWO (Retd) for $87) days w.e.f. 30.11.2012 to 31.O3.2OL4, to regularize the suspension period as per T.S Leave Rules, 1933."

31. In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that, Government have examined the matter in detail and informed that, since the case has not been proved, the individual has been acquitted i I : 9 SN,J wp _.t.56O5 _2022 ',^/hich does not tantamount to exonera:ion. 'fherefrlre, treated suspension period as "Not. on )uty" rnder F.R.54 B (7) and accordingly, se1:tled ,:s ava'lable leave as per G.O.Rt.No.96 SCD (Vig) )ept., Jt.01.07.2021

32. It is respectfully submit that, as per sub-rule 7 rrf F.R.54(B) "In a case falling under sub-rule (5) 1.he pe -iod of suspension shall not be treated ,::s a period spend on duty, unless the competent iluthority specifically directs that it shall be so I.reatec for any specified purpose. E. The relevant portion of th e coDv of the orders passed in (lrl R .C.No. 29 of 2O2O. date 18.O 5.2(J20 tn the instant case, the allegation against the revision petitioner/A.O.1 is that he had demanded and accepted the bribe from the de facto complainant for processing his promotion lile and a trap was laid against him, wl.erein he was (raught red handed with the tainted amount. Th€ record reveals tha. the trap was laid on 30.71.2012 at 2.00 P.M., stating that due to non-payment of bribe amount, the revislon pet itioner/A.O. 1 did not process the oromotirtn file of the cle factl complainant, but a perusal of the material on record wou d show that the de facto complainant has got promotion irs Hostel Welfare Officer, Grade-I on 29.L7.2012 itself vide proceedings Rc.No.A3l1302/2010-t, dated 29.L'...20t2 and the de facto complainant had reported to duty on the same day. Apart from that as per the At1:endance Register, t re revision petitioner/A. O. 1 went on tour for inspection cf colleges at Thorrur and Maripeda and ca me back on 30.11.2112 at 1.50 P.M. and he was not ava lable on 29.L'. .2012 and 30.11.2012 till 01.50 p.M. Therefore, it is clear that tre revision petitioner/A.O.1 did not keep: the file with him till the day of trap. Further, it is evident .,,rom the records tha. the promotion file was personally takel by the 1 10 5 N,J wp_25695 2022 de facto complainant on 29.11.2012 by signing in outward the revision e"girt"i Jn"t obtaining the signature of p"iition.r. and basing on ih" ptornotion orders,.he joined duty in pio.otion post arid he worked in the promotion post till his retirement on superannuation' On considering the material on record, this Court is of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the revision petitioner/A'O'1 , For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions' the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order' dated ii.ir.zofS, passed in Crl.M.P.No'162 of 2077 in C'C'No'61 oizOrs on ihe fil" of the Special ludge under the Prevention -Coiruption nct for SpeeOy trial of the Cases of imbezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department etc., Nampally, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside' DISC U sroNAN DCO NCLU SION:- DI US IO e n P 5 submi s rons in su Dort of hi s case:- s-f rth he i) The order irnpugned dated 15'03'2022' vide Memo No.223BISCD .Yig/2021 of the 1't respondent is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice' ii) The order impugned is without any reasons' iii) The order impugned, dated 15'03'2022 is contrary to the spirit of the orders of this Court' dated 25'09'2020 passed in W.P.No.15l39 of 2020' 11 SN,J \tp_25605 2022 iv) ,ln disr;harge from a criminal case and on reinstatement an ernploye: is entitled to full salary and allowancer,; for the perio,l the employee is kept under suspension. v) The order impugned, dated 15.03.'2022 of the 1st respcndent vide Memo No.223BISCD.Vig/202I is contrary to the vlew of the Apex Court and other High Clourts that once an employ,ls is acquitted oF the criminal charge, the employee y,ould be entitled to full pay and allowtrnces as subsi:;tence allowance for the period of suspension vi) t he 1"t respondent failed to give credence to thi3 orders pass€d in Cr l,R.C.No.29 of 2020, dated 18.05.2020. qascd--! rn the aforesaid submissio ns, the D n- ntended that the Writ Petition sh allowed as -PraYed for.

6. Learn ed Government Pleader for Services-V apDeaflno on behalf of the resoondents mainl u h llowino su mlssrons:- i) The petit oner is not entitled for the relief as praye:d for by the prlfiti6n6,; in the present writ petition. ,1 12 S N,.J wp _25605_2022 ii) Government vide G.O.Rt.No.96, SCD(Vig) Department, dated 01.07.2021 issued orders to regularize the suspension period of Sri R.Prabhakar, ASWO (Retired) from 30.11.2012 to 31.03.2014 as available leave and also to release pensionary benefits to him pending finalization of SLP before the Supreme Court of India. iii) The Commissioner (SCDD) vide proceedings. RC.No.Flle- 1177006/2021, dated 26.10.2021 has sanctioned half pay leave to Sri R.Prabhakar, ASWO(Retired) for (487) w.e.f.30.11.2012 to 31.03.2014 to regularize the suspension period as per TS Leave Rules, 1933. iv) The Government after careful examination of the subject issue informed that since the case had not been proved and since the individual had been acquitted, it does not tantamount to exoneration, therefore, the Government treated suspension period as "not on duty" under fundamental Rule 54-B (7) and accordingly, settled as available leave as per G.O.Rt.No.96 SCD (Vig) Department, dated 01.07.2021. Hence, there is no illegality in the Memo impugned, dated

15.03.2022 of the 1't resPondent. 13 SN,J wp_:1.5605_2022 Baserl on the aforesaid submissions the learned Government Pleader for Services-V contended that the Dresent Writ Petition needs to be dismissed in limini, CONCLUSION:-

7. A bare perusal of the record indicates that t is the speciFic cas 3 of the petitioner that the petitioner wl>rked as Social Wellare Officer, and had been promot,3d vide proceredinqs Rc.No.A3/1302/20L0, dated 15.12.201,2 of the District Collector and retired from service on 20.02.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. Since ACB case was p3nding against the petitioner, the petitic:ner was not paid pe rsion and other pensionary benefits and i:he state had initiat€ d prosecution against the petitioner ry filing Criminal car;e CC.No.61 of 2015 before the Prl.Special Judge for SPE & AIB Cases and FAC Spl.Judge under the pr,evention of corruption Act, Nampally, Hyderabad. The petitic:ner had filed,rn application to discharge him from the said crime, but the same \^as rejected by the Prl.Spl.judge for Sp[: & ACB Caser;. Aggr ieved by the same, petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Ca;e No.29 of 2020 before this Court and ilris Court allow,:d the said case vide order, dated 18.05.2020 and I l t4 SN,I wp_25605_202? discharged the petitioner from the above said crime. Thereafter, petitioner submitted representations to the respondents, dated 28.05.2020 & 09.06.2020 seeking release of pension and other pensionary benefits, but when the same were not released to the petitioner, petitioner approached the Court by filing W.P.No.15139 of 2O2O and the same was disposed of vide orders, dated 25.09.2020 directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on 28.05.2020 & 09.06.2020 and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, withln a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of the orde r. In compliance to the directions of this Court, dated B. 25.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.15139 of 2020, Government issued G.O.Rt.No.96, dated Ol.O7 -2021 regularizing the suspension period of the petitioner from 30' 11'2012 to

31.03.2014 as available leave and also to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner pending finalization of SLP before the Supreme Court of India' Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred review to the Government and the l't impugned memo No' respondent vide 15 SN,J wp,;15605_2022 No.2,Z3BISC D.Vig/2021, dated L5.03.2022 rejecl:ed the requost of the petitioner for treating the suspension period as on duty from 30.11.2012 to 31.03.2014 holding that the sam€ is not fea sib le.

9. Aba re oerusal of the imouoned, Memo, dated

15.O 2 2.2 of the 1"t resoond ent clearlv indica tes that the order imouqned is an order oassed without assiqninq anv reasons, without orovidi nq an nal hearin o ooortu n i roner rn to the f r e t tion of orincioles of natural iusti e tn a routine cersual manner wit out aoolication of mind except sta ting that the individual had been acquitted, sincr: the case had not been Droved which d oes not tantamount to exoneration and therefore. susoension period shall be t nD " under FR 54 B t (lf_qgg!__ar:cordinolv, settled as available leave as per G.O.Rt.No.96, dated O1.O7.2O21. 1O. "Fundamental Rule 54-B Sub-Rule (3) AND_G) read as under: "(3) Where the authority competent to c rder -einstatement is of the opinion that the suspension I I I 16 SN,I wp_25605 _2022 was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), be paid the full 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 proceedin'gs instituted against the Government servant had been delayed, to the due to reasons directly attributable Government servant, it may after giving him an opportunity to make his representation (within sixty days from the date on which communication to this regard is served on him) and after considering the representation, if any submitted by him, direct for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay (only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine)' (4) In a case falling under sub-rule-(3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all PurPoses. (5) In cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3), the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rules (B) and (9)' be paid [such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and have been entitled allowancesl to which he would as the competent had he not been susPended, otice to authority maY determine, er qivin t n t] SN,J wp_.25605_2022 con side rinq Dro po sed and after e ntata n, if anv, s bmitted bv him in ixt d ction wi h on which the notice has been serVed'l as mav that c n hall exc cified in the n otice. "

11. [:unda ental Rule 54-8(7 ), is extr under: "7. Fundamental Rule 54-B reads as unier: l:.R. 54-8. (1) When a Government servant who has lteen srrspended is reinstated or would have beerr so reinsta:ed but for his retirement (inclurJing l)remati,lre retirement) while under suspension, the authori :y competent to order reinstatement s;hall <:onsider and make a specific order- (a) regarrling the p.rv and allowances to be paid to the (;overn rent servant for the period of suspen::;ion onding with reinstatement or the date of his retirem_"nt (including premature retirement), as the case miry be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.,, L2. A barr: perusal of the fundamental rule 54 B clearly ind,cates that the l"t respondent failed to pass a reasoned order in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice, by providing an opportunity of personal hearang to the , !g :I I : I I I I I I I : 18 SN,J wp_256O5_2022 petitioner herein as mandated under FR 54-8, Sub Rule (3) (4) & (s).

13. The relevant Dortion i.e,, oaraqraph Nos.31 and 32 of the order of this Cou dated 18.11.2O16 oassed in W.P.No.144 2 of 2OtG in "Mo hd. Ashfao Ahmed Kha n Vs. State of A.P." is extracted hereu nder: "31. In SHARDA SINGH V/s. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in 2009 11 SCC 683, the Supreme Court observed that a Government servant after exoneration of the charges framed against him cannot be deprived of his pay for the period of suspension only on the ground that he had not rendered any work during such suspension period. The case on hand is however distinguishable as we are of the opinion that the petitioner's suspension from service cannot be said to be wholly unjustified.

32. Given the totality of the aforestated circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that as the petitioner did not render actual service to the State from 23.09.2003 to 09.07.2007, albeit through no fault of his, he would not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the said period. This would suffice to give effect to the finding of this Court that his suspension was not wholly without .,s i ,itl -.?llti ."t# 19 SN,J wp_ 25605_2022 justification and to avoid mulcting the exche,quer with ttris bu rden. However, the said oeriod shall be trelated as on dutv for all other purooses, vtz,, I eckoninq of notional benefits, includ in q ents. and Densionarv benefits, keepit lq tn mind the retrosDectiv e promo tio n qiven to hi with effect from O1.O 6.20O2. The is held entitled to full pav and allowarnces for the susoension oeriod fr_sn! 09.07.2O07 to 15.05.2008 and the said per.iggl etreated as on dutv for all ouro oses. " L4. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2(.104 vol 1 SC SLI 264 in Andhra Bank Vs.W.T.Seshachalam ,rbserved that when a criminal proceedings is launche:d after investigatio r by an outside agency and employee is acquitted of thr: crimiral charge, the employee would be entiUr,:d to full pay and allcwances as subsistence allowance for the :;eriod of susp(tnsion.

15. fhe Ap,ex Court in Shyambhu Nath Singhala {!t Others reported in (1996) 32 ATC 237 observed that an ernployee on discharge from criminal case and on reinstat€rment entitlod to full salary and allowances for the period the petitioner w;ts kept under suspension. 20 SN,J wp _25605 _2022

16. This Court in its judgment, dated OB.ll.2OL7 reported in 2018 vol 1 ALD 376 in a case where the prosecution was launched against the petitioner thereunder for alleged offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and, acquitted by ACB Couit treld that the enefits to the oetitioner al ofc onseou entia I rizatio i I l ro otio st of u En q ineer with retrosDective effe the Court directed the respondents thereunder to grant all asn ot iustified and other consequential reliefs including monetary and seniority benefits to the petitioner. This Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the fact as borne on record that the order impugned, dated 15.O3 .2C'22 ot the 1't respondent in rejecting the review petition dated 07.12.2021 preferred by the petitioner against G'O.Rt.No.g6, SCD(Vig') Department' dated O1.07.2O21 is without assigning any reasons and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and duly considering Fundamental 21, 5N,J w p _,2:.605 _2022 rule 54-8, the petitioner herein is entitled for the relief as pri:ryed f or in the present writ petition. 17 " Takinq into coniideration: a) The ;rforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The srrbmissions made by the party-in-person and the tearned Government Pleader for Services-V, appearing r>n behalf of the respondents. c) The a verments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. d) Gov,ernment vide G.O.Rt.No.96, Sf:D(vig) Department, dated OL.O7.202l(referred tr) and extracted arbove) e) T'he contents of the impugned proceedings of the respcrndent No.1 vide Memo No.2238lSCD.Vig/2027, datecl 15.O3.2O22 (reterred to and extracted above) f) The ordr:rs passed in Crl.R.C.No. 29 of 2O2O' dated

18.O5. 202()_(referred to and extracted above) f I ! i I ;, i llI r II I I I I )) SN,J wp_25605_2022 g) The observations of the Apex Court and other Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) again enlisted below:- i) 2009 11 SCC 683 ii) The Division Bench of this Court dated 18.11.2016 passed in W.P.No.1442 ol 2016 in "Mohd. Ashfaq Ahmed Khan Vs. State of A.P., (referred to and extracted above) where under it is clearly observed that a Government servant after exoneration of the charges framed against him cannot be deprived of his pay for the period of suspension only on the ground that he had not rendered any work during such suspension period, h) The procedure laid down in FR 54 (B) (referred to and extracted above) i) In the tight of the discussions, reasoning and conclusion arrived at para Nos.5 to 16. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings of the respondent No.1 vide Memo No.2238lSCD.vig/2O2L, dated 15.O3.2022 addressed a:..44}'- &- -.=rr,*d 23 S N,J wP- 2l:605-2022 to the p(:titioner herein is set aside and the respondents are directed to re-consider the review petition, darted O7.12.2O2L pteterred by the petitioner aggrieved against G.O.RI.No.96, SCD(Vig.) Department, dated OL,O7.2O2L, in acctrrdance to law, in conforrrrity with principles of nattral justice by providing iin opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, duly taking into consideration, the procedure laid down under FR 54-B (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate reasoned speaking (,rders, duly taking into consideratinn, the observations in the various judgments (referred to and extracted :rbove). However, there shall be no order as to costs" Asa sequel. the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in tre Writ Petition shall also stand closed. \ To, SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUIY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The S,ecretarl to Govt., s.c. Development Department, Secn,rtariat Building, T.S.,Hyderab:td. Telangana, Dl;S Bhavan, Masa Tank, Hyderabad.

2. The'Ccmmissioner/Director, S.C. Development Department. Sltate of 3. The A'lcountant General (A and E), State of Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4:"One CC to Slll. R. PRABHAKAR , PARTY lN PERSON IOPtJC] 5. Two CCs to (iP FOR SERVICES V, ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyder;abad [CUT]

6. Two CD Copies \V BIV k*' .:&i CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:0210t112025 I, I' L ,r \:.: ),,' )') t1\\r\ tt6 t '' t, ORDER WP.No.2560li of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,, \(- )/ {9\