Heard Mr v. Ravi Chandran

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to isiue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ oi Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to have his suspension period from 27.7j988 to 25.9.20O1 as on duty for all purposes including pay, increments, arrears of pay and pension duly re-fixing petitioners pay and perision in terms of PRC 2005 and 2010 together with an interest of 18o/o per annumfromthedateofpetitionersretirementfromservicei.e.,30.9.20lltothe date on which actual payment was made and further be notionally promoted as Head constable (civil) on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits duly holding the action of the respondents in effecting delayed payment of pensionary and re-tirement benefits and iurther treating the suspension period of thirteen (1 3) years as not on duty on the basis of external dictation vide impugned D.o.No. O6gstt\o. L & O/Bg/1b50 t2O14 dated 28.11.2O14 issued by the 3rd respondent and the 1riemo no. 12830/Ser .lltA1t2o11 dated 3.9.2014 issued by 1st respondent and therebydenyingpromotionwithoutanyjustificationasbeingarbitrary,illegal, discriminatory and uiolation of Articles 14and 16 of constitution of lndia lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition rnr.re'slection 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filecl in r;rmport of the petition, tre Higir court .nay be pleased to direct the lst Responcle'rt t,: consider petitioners representation ,Jatel 0B-07-20.15 on the analogy of orde.s issred vide proceedings No. Kll(8)3527188( 1) drrted 04_09_1006 and similar such ;,ror;t:edings issued by the Directrcr of rreasurier,; and Accounts, Hyderabad in respec:t of co-charged officers Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V RAVICHANDRAN Counsel for the Resgxrndent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FOR SERVICES The Court made, tl\e l,ollowing: ORDER a ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.24367 of 2O18 This Writ Petition is filed seeking the lollowing relief '... declaring that the petitioner is entitled to have his suspension period from 27.07.198A to 25.09.2001 as on duty for all purposes including pay, increments, arrears of pay and pension duly re-hxing petitioner's pay and pension in terms of PRC 2005 and 2010 together with an interest of l8%o per annum from the date of petitioner's retirement from service r.e., 3O.9-2Oll to the date on which actual payment was made and further be notionally promoted as Head Constable (Civil) on par with his juniors with all consequential benehts duly holding the action of the respondents in effecting delayed payment of pensionary and retirement benefits and further treating the suspension period ot thirteen (13) years as not on duty on the basis of external d.ictation vide impugned D. O.No.6895 (No. L&O / 89 / 19 50 I 20 I 4l dated 28-11.2014 issued by the 3'd respondent and the Memo no.12830/Ser.lllAl/20ll dated 3.9.2O14 issued by 1"t respondent and thereby denying promotion without any justification as being arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violation of Articles 14 and' L6 of Constitution of India ...-" 2l Brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable (Civil) in Hyderabad City Police during tlne year 1977 - While so, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail along with others in connection with three criminal cases. Hence, he was placed under suspension uide proceedings dated 22.O7.198a by respondent No'3 and subsequently he was reinstated into service uide proceedings dated 25.09.2O01 issued by respondent No.3. Further, the suspension of the petitioner was never reviewed and he was 2 PK, J \\ | ')4367 2Ol8 continued rtlr(,cr prolonged suspension for morc t"ran 13 vears' Thereafter'. rlie judgment dated 1 1.08.2004 in 'l C No ; 360, 361 and 362 oi 1993, the petitioner was acqlr Lttecl by lhe IX Melropotitrr Magistrate, Hyderabad, in all the < rimrnal cases' Thereafte ', tlLt: petitioner was retired from service ln l'10 09'201 1 on attain nrl :Jr: age of superannuation and by lhe sairl time, the petitioncr \r'ai; llot under currency of any departmer tal rr criminal proceeclings; tLrrC the petitioner was not sanctiollcd full retirement and pensiic,n,: -,' beneltts and was sanctioned 'ln y a nticipatory pension rlr;le proceedings dated 2O.lO.2Ol2 ancl llratrrity. in the year 2Ol r an I llnal payment was effected in the ye ar' 2017 i'e' almost 6 1,,.'211', after his retirement. Thereafter, full pr:nsion was sanctioned ir ttre year 2015 and revised pension in the year 2O17' Pursuant to the series of representations l;ubtnittr:d by the petitioner :;<:eking to regularize the period ol sltspension, the Governm,:rt r.rde Memo No'12830/Ser.IliAl t2Ol l'

03.09.20 [4, nas rejected the request of the petitiorer z nd treated the perio,l o1' ; -rspension of the petitioner as 'n<tt or) dL ty' without assigning .inl reasons except stating that suspens on s justified. Though thc pr:'.itioner frled a Review Petition challerlgin;3 the order dated 03 O') .'2.a14, till date no orders are passed tl- eret n. Hence, this Writ P('tit ()n . ,l J- PK, J wp 24367 2Ot8 3) Heard Mr. V. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing for the respondents 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even after acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal cases, several of his juniors were promoted as Head Constables (Civil) but the case of the petitioner was overlooked for promotion without afly justification. Learned counsel has lurther submitted that treating the suspension period of more than 13 years as not on duty amounts to imposition of harsher punishment than imposing any penalty contemplated under the Rules. The discretion conferred upon the authorities should be exercised reasonably and rationally but not arbitrarily. Further, by virtue of the decision taken by respondent No.1, petitioner was denied increments for 13 years and the same had a cascading effect on his pay and pension. Learned counsel has further contended that though the co-accused were given the benefit of treating the suspension period as on duty for all purposes, the petitioner was singled out and the same offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that as the respondents are responsible for delay in sanctioning and paying pensionary benefits, petitioner is entitled for interest @ lSoh per annum for the date of retirement till actual payment. Further, the petitioner was also denied the beneht of { 4- PK, J Nr.4367 2018 \ PRC 2005 lnd 2010, due to which, the petitiont:r ls' re(rclvrng a meager pensi,:)lr cf Rs.12,0O0/- while his counterparts ar-e drawing more than R; 2i,0OO/- per month Petitioner .'"'as als I denied promotion u' ll-,orlt any justification while severzLl ol hir ' juniors were promol,:ci to the next higher category' TlLere ore' the petitioner i I rrl s I entitled for notional promotion c)n par wrth his juniors atlta".t lrcm the date of his acquittal in r:riminirl cases in the year 200'l . ience, the learned counsel prayed to iisu( suitable tlircclions to :he respondents and allow the writ pcLitirrn Reliance has been p .r, e,l ,)n Raiendra Yadant u' State oJ M'P''' 5) Per (o-It-rr, lhe learned Government Pleadtrr hrs submitted that while t ltt' eetitioner was working in Traf{icr ( )om tlounding Booth at 'lrt Ilic Branch, Hyderabad, he rnil;app'ropriated Governmertt n:( rley to the tune of Rs 2,4 1,04O/- collectcC by way of fines du-ir:g rlLe period from 14 10'1985 to 14 C'4 1')87 ior r'vhich a case in :r tre No. 14211988 of CCS, DD, Hyc era rad' was registerecl [o' t I Lc offence punishable under Secti()ns 409 468 and 42O ctf Intlirrn F'enal Code, wherein he was arraye<l as A' 1 conneclior .vtt I said criminal case, petitioner \\ras tirested on 2l.OT.lg8rl, rtrrained in judicial custody till 30 ()T l l88 and later released on ' rai . Subsequently, the case was trar'sfer red to CI D on

25.03. 198i1 lb - lurther investigation. As such, the l)ctit oner was ' 2013 (3) SC]C , l 5 PK, J \Np 24367 2Ot8 placed under suspension vide office D.O.No.2006/gg, dated

22.07.1988 and for every six months his suspension was reviewed and decided to continue under suspension in view of gravity of allegations. Learned Government pleader has further submitted that vide office order dated 1O.05.1993, an oral enquiry was ordered by appointing the Assistant Commissioner of police, Chatrinaka Division, as Inquiry Authority. However, due to revision of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, the oral enquiry ordered was cancelled vide office Memo dated 27 .l2.lgg1 and departmental proceedings could not be initiated against the petitioner under the new Rules as the material record was lying with CID. However, the petitioner was released lrom suspension vide ofhce order dated 25.09.2O01 pending disciplinary action. Further, the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case in C.C. No.361/ 1993 vide judgment dated 1 1.08.2004 by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Subsequently, litter dated 24.08.2005 was addressed to the Director General of Police, Hyderabad, seeking clarification whether to drop further action as the delinquency is more tlran 17 years old. In reply, the Government vide Memo dated 20.06.2006 requested to send report as to the action taken against the oflicial prosecution witnesses who did not support the prosecution and also to take action against the Investigating Officer for perfunctory -6- PK, J Nr) 24367 20 18 1 {t investig:rt o'r, lue to which the case ended in acquittal. Accordinglr,. Irttcr dated 31.01.2008 was addru;sed to Addl. Director ()ene'r i I of Police, CID, AP, Hyderabad, to l;end report on the action t, kcr. against the Investigating Officer. Furtht r, a report datcd 14.()..f (,O8 was also sent to the Governm,:nt by rncntioning the detailr; -Lrrrl names of officials who did not cleposc J.roperly in the Court d Lrt- t I which the case ended in acquittal zind the orders lrom [he (io,/orr ment are awaited. Further, the [)ire<rtor lieneral of Police, A.l). ll.,lerabad, also addressed a letter vidr: Mr:mo dated

08.04.20 I 1 sr-' : <ing to issue orders regularizing tl e s Lspension period of t1-: p,:titioner. In the meantime, the petitiorrer retired from ser.,ice, ,)n attaining the age of superannu ation on 30.09.20 1 1 . As such, another letter dated 19.03.1,i0 l2 was add ressed t :r 1 l- e Director General of Police, Ap, t Iyclc rabad, to regularrize tiLe : rrspension period of the petitioner-. 'Iherr:after, the Governmelt i:sued Memo dated 03.09.2014 while regularizing the suspcnsiorr rt:r od from 27 .O7 .198a b 25.O9.2O1I dir cctcd to lreat the said its n(r. on duty. It is further submittr:d trat since Lhe departmenta p:tceedings were pending against the peritioner, his case was n lt :onsidered for promotion to the ltighr:r cadre. Further, pLLrsri 1nt to the request of the petitiorrer br .elease of consequen _iiLl lr,:nefits on par with the co-acctrsed, re spondent No.2 vidc . rti: Rc.No. l8Z lT2l20lS, dated ()6.1 1.2()15, has - ,-] 7- PK, J wp 24367 2ola informed respondent No.2 that earlier the Government vide Memo No. 12830/Ser.lllAll2011, dated O3.O9.2014, has requested to Lreat the period of suspension of the petitioner as 'not on duty'in terms of FR 54-b (7) and thereby requested respondent No.1 to take necessary action in the matter. However, the orders are awaited from respondent No.1. Therefore, the learnod Government Pleader prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective counsel and perused the record. 7l As can be seen from the record, admittedly, vide Memo No.1283O/Ser.lllAll2}ll, dated O3.O9.2014, the period of suspension of the petitioner from 27.O7.1988 to 25.09.2011 was regularized however said period was treated as not on duty. Further, in the Review Application hled by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 on 08.07.2015 it was c4tegorically pointed out that in respect of co-accused, the suspension period was regularized treating his period of suspension as on duty for all purposes vide Proc.No.K.lI(8) 35277 188(ll' dated 04'09'2006, issued by The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Hyderabad' But, the counter is silent in this regard. I 8- PK, J \to 24367 2018 8) In th is lrackdrop, this Court deems it aLpt o r.:fer to the judgment ,'1- he Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra yad.au's c@se (reJerrect. supra) wherein it is held as under: l n "12. lt,: I)octrine of Equality applies to all who rrre equal y ptaced; even a 11('n!l persons who are found guilty. The persons ! lto l,ave been forrncl 3urlt. <trn also claim equality of treatment, if the,r, can establish discrin- ir:,r1 cr u,l.rile imposing punishment when all oJ thern ar( involved rn the s,rnle inr:ident. Parity among co-delinquenr s hirs also to be mainta n.rl r! ren punishment is being imposed. punisl)mer t should not bc 'li:r1 ,ro1)ortionate while comparing the involve men of co delinquer :s ,vho are parties to the same transaction or ir.rcrdr nt. The Disciplini rv Authority cannot impose punish nent w-rich is dispropor ttrnate. i.e., lesser punishment for serious olle rse and string(,nt l)Ll iihment for lesser offences.

13. 'l'lrt. ; rinr_-rple stated above is seen applied in fi:w ju<lgrnents of this Co.rr. ,^lre earliest one is Director General of pclice rncl )thers v. G Dasa.,a l {19S8) 2 SCC 407, wherein one Dasayan, a I)oli:e C< nstable, along rlitlr t.\( other constables and one Head Constable ,r,ere charged for thc r;a 'lc it,tLs oI misconduct. The Disciptinary Aulhon.y ex )nerated two oth:r corr,rtables, but imposed the punishment tf dismis.;al from seryice o'- I,..si1\'an and that of compulsory retir-eme,rl o!r Head ConstaLlc -'ll s Court, in order to meet the ends ofjustice, sutrstituted the ord( r tl ' trmpulsory retirement in plaee of the order ol d smissal lrom serri e L,r] Dasayan, applying the principle of paritl in punjshment a[long ( o 'ir:lrrcluents. This Court held that it may, rtherr,"ise violate Article l4 rr' 'le oonstitution of India. In Sha eshkr mar rars,radbhai Shah (la:;e he workman was dismissed from ser,,ice proved miscondur I lo\r,ever, few other workmen, against rvhor.r the re were identical aileqr ions, were arlowed to avail of the berLefit cf v()luntary retiremc'tt sCheme. [n such circumstances, this Court clire(]ted hat the workman i iso 1e rreated on the same looting and be gi,,en t1e b( nefit of volunta r'lt rernent from service from the month on,.vhic,r th( others rvere givc n rh,'Lenefit." 9 PK, J wp 24367 2ola 9) Having regard to the fact that the Review Application filed by the petitioner is already pending before respondent No.1 for consideration since the year 2015, this Court is of the considered view that it is appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to dispose of the same within a hxed time frame. 10) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.l to consider the Review Application filed by the petitioner on 08.07.2O15 in the iight of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Yada o's case (reJerred supra) and duly considering the submission of the petitioner that case of the co-accused viz., K.Narayana Reddy was considered treating his period of suspension as on dut5r for all purposes vide proceedings of the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Hyderabad, in Proc.No.K.ll(8\ 35277 188(L), dated O4.O9.2006, and pass appropriale orders within a period of six weeks lrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without reference to impugned Memo dated O3.Og.2Ol4, and strictly in accordance with law and duly alfording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' No costs //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY SS TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, \

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home De Hyderabad-22 ment, Secretariat,

2. The Director General of Police, Telangana Hyderabad x-?t . -Yt - \

3. The Comnrissirl-.s1- of police, Hyderabad City Hyderabad 4. One CC tc s:Rl V RAVTCHANDRAN Advocate tOpuq 5. Two CCs t: Ge rOR SERVICES,High Court for the State of T:)langana [ouT]

6. Two CD Crrpier; KKS GJP t{ HIGH COURT \ \ DATED:0W}eii2025 I f ! i.'tv + -')o ,I 9JJ}{ ffi .\tf' :a \. / ; l1: ... T iltf-' '' <a..:: -'::2 ) ORDER WP.No.24367 of 2018 DISPOSING'TI-IE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO-q.TS \6q sx