SRI SURESH, REP Ms v. UMA DEVI The Court made the following

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. V. SATYAM REDDY,REP SRI M. KIRAN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI SURESH, REP Ms. V. UMA DEVI The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHTNAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT APPEAL No.8 OF 2025 IUDGMENT: (Pr-:r Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinancl Kumar Shavili) This Writ Appeal IS filecl aggrieved by the order, dated

03.12.2024, passecl in W.P.No.26947 of 2008 by a learned Single |udge of this Court.

2. Heard Sri V. Satyam Recldy, learned counsel representing Sri M. Kiran Redcl),, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Suresh, leamed counsel representing Ms. V. Uma Devi, Iearned counsel for the respondent-Bank

3. Learnecl counscl for the appellant had contencled that the appellant was initially appointed as Branch Manager in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank on 21.03.1978. The said Bank got merged with responclent No.l-Bank. Later, the appellant was promoted as Officer lunior Managemcnt Scale-I. While he was working as such, alleging certaiu irregularities, ttre appellant was placed under suspension on 06.05.2004. Later, Charge Sheet, dated 21.06.2004, 2 AKS,J fre LNA.J w A.No.8 of 2025 was issued alleging that while he was wbrking as Branch Manager, Choutuppal Branch, he al[owed to deposit an amouut of Rs.1,00,000/- into the sundrv cleposit account pertaining to one P. Upcndcr Reddv, officer uucler suspension; that he failed to sencl said Rs.l,00,000/- to Motkur Branch, where fraud was reported; that he dcliberatelv kept the amount in Choutuppal Branch, which facilitated to n'rismanage the said amount; and that he failed to inform the head office about the receipt and withdrawal of Rs.1,00,000/-, which pertains to a suspended employee.

4. The appellant has submittecl cletailed explanation denying the charges levellecl against him. Not satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority has conducted a detailed enquiry. In all, four Articles of Charges were levelled against the appellant and the Enquiry Officer has helcl Charge Nos.1 and 3 were not proved, Charge No.2 was partlv proved ancl Charge No.4 was proved.

5. The clisciplinary authority has disagreed with the Enquiry Officer's rcport to the extent where the charges were held not proved and issucd a disagreement note. The appeilant has 7, AKS,J & LNA,.I w A.No.8 of 2025 submitted a detailed explanation and objections to the disagreement rrote ancl without giving anv personal hearing, the disciplinary authority has imposeci the punishment of 'censure' on the appcllant zrile proceeclings, datecl 31.03.2007. Though the punishment of censure rs a fitlnor penalty, the clisciplinary authority has treatecl the suspension periocl as 'not spent on duty', besides clenying back-wages to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filecl the subject W.P.No.26947 of 2008.

6. Learnecl counsel for the appellant hacl further contended that after conclusior.r of disciplinary proceedings, the appellant was reinstatecl into scrvice on 03.08.2006 ancl retirecl from service on

37.07.2008, on attaining the age of superannuation. Learned counsel further contenc]ed that 'censure' is a minor penalty and whenever minor penalties are imposecl, the sr-rspension period cannot be h'eatecl as 'not spent on duty' ancl the concept of back- wages would also uot arise- Treating the suspension periocl as 'not spent on duty' amounts to inflicting a major penalty. If the suspension perio{ raras treated as 'spent on cluty', the appellant I AIiS,.J & I,NA,.J w.A. No.8 of 2025 would get remaining subsistence allowance, which he was otherwise eligibte.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his submissions, relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in A.V. Vinod Kumar v. The Executive Committee of the Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhil, wherein a view was taken by tl.re learnecl Single Juclge that whenever minor penalties were imposed, the suspension period cannot be treated as 'not spent on cluty'. Aclmittedly, 'censure' is a minor penalty and if the suspension period is not treatecl as spent on duty, it becomes a major penalty. Though the intention of the disciplinary authority is to impose a minor penaltl', treating the suspension period as 'not spent on duty' amounts to grave punishment. Further, the appellant had also retired from servicc' The only issue to be considered now is as to how the suspension period has to be treated in cases where minor punishments were imposed' The learned single Judge, without appreciating any of the contentions ' :ooz is.1 ,tLo ++s / 5 AKS,.' & LNA,J W.A No.a of 2025 I raised by the appellant, has mechanically dismissed the subject Writ Petition aide impugnec-l order, dated 03'72'2024' Therefore' appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order, dated 03'12'2024, and also by setting aside that portion of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, wherein it has treated the suspension period as 'not spent on duty' and further, direct the respondents to treat the suspension period as'spent on duty' by granting all consequential benefits to the apPellant.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had contenclecl that the clisciplinary authoritv has rightly imposed the punishment of 'censure' and treated the suspension period as 'not spent on duty' and denied back-wages for the proven misconduct in the enquiry. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the subject Writ Petition' Therefore, there are no merits in thc Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed' 9 This Court, having considered the rival submissions n.rade by the learnecl counsel for the parties, is of the co_nsiclerecl v iew that AI{S,.J & LNA,J W.A.No.8 of 2025 I the disciplinary authority could not have treateci the suspension period as 'not spent on duty', more so, when the disciplinary authority has imposecl rninor penalty of 'censure' on the appellant. Thereforc, tl.rat portion of the proceec'lings, dated 31.03.2007, of tl-re clisciplinary authority, wherein it directed that the suspension period shall be treated as'not spent on cluty' is set asicle.

10. Further, admittedly, the appellant placed under suspension, but it does not amount to ccssation of service. When there is no cessation of sen,ice between the appellant and the respondent-Bank, the concept of back-wages would not arise, if tl.rere is any out of employment period. Therefore, that portion of tlre proceedings, dated 31 .03.2007, of the disciplinary authority where it denied back-wages is also liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is sct aside. The learnecl Single Judge erred in not interfering with the punishment order to the extent of treating the suspension periocl as 'not spent on duty'. Therefore, the impugned order, datcd 03.12.2024, is also liable to be set aside and accordinglv, the same is set asic-le. The appellant is entitled for I '7 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.B of 2025 treating the suspension period AS 'spent on cluty' with all consequential benefits.

11. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Appeat is allowecl. Thcre shall be no order as to costs. N{iscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Appeat sl.rall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K,SRiNIVASA RAO INT REGISTRAR cTto N OFFICER To, lTls3lSlis3l,t*3t?ts?313,YJ:t':t[#33s"o'n"""'t#fll?i"%100""' lttffi Ji:l-'n*ss#;lv*""$ffiH'?I.x""lstil*' BM Y*' HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 JUDGMENT WA.No.8 of 2025 ( o 5 T I 12 i'tB Zffi f t t ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS a.8* #l"