Partly allowed

K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. The Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development

Telangana HC7 Dec 2012WP/11031/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging impugned order treating suspension period as leave. Court held competent authority failed to consider if acquittal was honourable; remanded to decide pay/allowances under Rule 33(c) and Standing Order XXIII. Order affirmed subsistence allowance is a right.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to competent authority to decide pay and allowances after expressing opinion on honourable acquittal; subsistence allowance directed to be paid within three w

K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Vs The Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.11031 OF 2006

¶4

Date: 07.12.2012

¶5

Between:-

¶6

K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

The Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited, regd.office at Maitrivanam, rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director.

¶10

..Respondent

¶11

ORDER:-

¶12

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order in proceedings No.IDC/MD/HRD/ASQ.3/E10/194/86/2006/5606, dated 13.02.2006 of the Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited (Corporation), which is a state Government undertaking, treating the period of his suspension as leave.

¶13

2. The petitioner along with two others were tried on charges under Sections 302 and 498-A I.P.C. on the allegation that he along with aforesaid two others committed murder of his wife following the estrangement between them for various reasons. The Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada, by its judgment, dated 16.11.1998, convicted the petitioner and aforesaid other accused on the charge of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The petitioner and the other two accused filed Criminal

¶14

Appeal No.1686 of 1998 and this Court acquitted all of them through the judgment, dated 17.09.1999.

¶15

3. It may be noted that during the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer at that time in the Corporation was kept under suspension with effect from 10.04.1997 because of his involvement in the above criminal case. As already seen, the case against him ended in acquittal on 17.09.1999 in this Court.

¶16

4. The petitioner applied for regularization of his suspension period and payment of emoluments following his reinstatement into service and that period is from 10.04.1997 to 31.12.1999. The competent authority initially did not pass any order. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16021 of 2000 earlier. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 09.06.2005 giving a direction to the competent authority to initiate action on the application of the petitioner and pass necessary orders. This order is based upon Standing Order of A.P.S.I.D.C.L., which was considered in the said order and that reads as follows:

¶17

“XXIII. Any employee who is arrested on a criminal charge if so directed the Managing Director be considered as under suspension from the date of his arrest and shall be allowed subsistence allowance until the termination of the proceeding against him, where an adjustment of his pay and allowances shall be made according to the circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision as to whether his absence is to be counted as period spent on duty or leave, the full pay and allowances given only in the event of the employee being acquitted of all the charges and treated as on duty during the period of his absence. An employee who is committed to prison for doubt or is convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude shall be liable to be dismissed from the service of the Corporation.

¶18

Where a conviction of an employee is set aside by a higher Court and the employee is acquitted honourably he shall be reinstated in service restoring his services and salary during the period in which he was actually prevented from attending to his duties

¶19

by an order of suspension.”

¶20

5. Pursuant to the order in the aforesaid writ petition, the competent authority in the Corporation passed the present impugned order treating the whole period from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement as leave. For some period, the leave is shown as half pay leave and for other periods, it is shown as extraordinary leave on pay. The petitioner’s grievance is that as per the aforesaid Standing Order and also Rule 33(c) of the Rules and Regulations of the Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited Staff Regulations, since he is acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled to have his suspension period to be treated as duty period and also pay and allowances for that period. The grievance of the petitioner is without considering the rules and also the above Standing Order, the competent authority simply treated his suspension period as half pay leave and extraordinary leave despite his acquittal in the criminal case.

¶21

6. Rule 33(c) also reads as follows:

¶22

“Treatment of the period of suspension:

¶23

i. When the employee under suspension is reinstated, the competent authority may grant to him the following pay and allowances for the period of suspension:

¶24

(a) If the employee is exonerated and not awarded any of the penalties mentioned in Rule 31, in full pay and allowances which he would have been entitled to, if he had not been suspended, less the subsistence allowance already paid to him; and

¶25

(b) If otherwise, such proportion of pay and allowance as the competent authority may prescribe.

¶26

ii. In a case falling under Sub-Clause (a), the period of absence from duty will be treated as a period spent on duty. In a case, falling under sub-clause (b) it will not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the competent authority so directs.

¶27

7. In the present case, the Corporation has not conducted any departmental enquiry against the petitioner and it reinstated him

¶28

revoking his earlier suspension following the acquittal in the criminal case. Standing Order No.XXIII extracted supra in the earlier judgment of this Court says that whether the acquittal is an honourable or not is a relevant factor, but nothing is spelt out by the concerned authority in the impugned order on that aspect.

¶29

8. Sri T.Suryakaran Reddy’s contention is that in view of the Rule 33(c) and the Standing Order XXIII, and also having regard to his contention that the acquittal in the Criminal Appeal is a honourable one, the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances during the entire suspension period or till his reinstatement. It may, however, be noted that according to the Standing Order last para extracted supra, the question whether the acquittal is an honourable one or not is an important question to be considered by the competent authority or the Corporation, but it has not considered that aspect. So far as this aspect is concerned, it is only for the competent authority to decide on the same in the first instance going by the relevant record and not by this Court. Thus, the competent authority has not discharged its duty in its behalf.

¶30

9. Another grievance of the petitioner is that he has also not been paid the subsistence allowance during the relevant period of suspension when the criminal case was pending. It may be noted that subsistence allowance is a matter of right according to XXIII in such cases and it has to be paid during the suspension period and this is not in dispute. Accordingly, the concerned authority shall immediately calculate and pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. So far as reconsideration of the matter under Rule 33(c) is concerned, the competent authority, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, shall take a decision in the matter within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

10. In the above circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the competent authority to decide it afresh after giving an opportunity to petitioner and express its opinion whether the acquittal is an honourable one or not and then, take a decision in the matter including pay and allowances with reference to Standing Order XXIII and also Rule 33(c)(i)(a). There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

_____________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 07^th December, 2012 AMD

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.11031 OF 2006

¶35

Dated: 07.12.2012

¶36

AMD

K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. The Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. The Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Appala Konda, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

L. Bhoopathi Reddy, Vs The Depot Manager

Md.Rafiq, Vs a.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Deputy Executive

Y.Padmanabh Shastri Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

R. Malla Reddy, Vs The Honble Industrial Tribnal-cum- Labour Court

Smt. D. Ramya Vs Vijay Charan Rao