Allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Narasimulu

Telangana HC20 Oct 2014WP/12793/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed writ petition challenging Administrative Tribunal order which terminated proceedings against suspended employee. Held mere acquittal or exoneration does not automatically mandate treating suspension as on duty; it depends on whether suspension was wholly unjustified. Matter remanded to Disciplinary Authority to decide under applicable Rules.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Tribunal set aside. Matter remanded to Disciplinary Authority to take decision on treating suspension period as on duty under F.R. 54-B (3)/(5) and G.O.Ms.No.307.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs G. Narasimulu — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.12793 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU)

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order, dated 26-08-2013 in O.A.No.10653 of 2012 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶5

2. 1^st respondent herein (applicant) filed the aforementioned O.A. to quash the impugned proceedings dated 1105-2012 issued by the 2^nd respondent and its consequential proceedings, dated 06-06-2012 issued by the 1^st respondent and direct the respondents to treat the suspension period from 27-072007 to 12-10-2010 as on duty with full pay and allowances by holding the action of the respondents in not treating the applicant’s suspension period as on duty with all consequential benefits as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

3. The Tribunal after considering the material on record, allowed O.A. setting aside the impugned proceedings. Hence, this writ petition.

¶7

4. The short point that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the applicant is entitled to treat the period of suspension from 27-07-2007 to 12-10-2010 as on duty for all purposes including pay and allowances?

¶8

5. The case of the applicant is that as he was acquitted in a criminal case and was exonerated from the charges in the departmental proceedings, he is entitled to treat the period of suspension as ‘spent on duty’ for all practical purposes including pay and allowances.

¶9

6. Learned Government Pleader for Services I (Telangana State) contended that simply because the applicant was acquitted or exonerated from the charges in the departmental proceedings, he is not entitled automatically to treat the

¶10

suspension period as period ‘spent on duty’ unless he shows that the suspension of an employee is wholly unjustified and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶11

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent contended that since the applicant was acquitted by the competent Criminal Court and he was exonerated from the charges in the departmental proceedings, his suspension period has to be treated as ‘spent on duty’ and consequently, he is entitled for all monetary benefits and that is the reason why, the Tribunal rightly directed the Disciplinary Authority to treat the period as ‘spent on duty’ and that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶12

8. The applicant seems to have involved in an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. Thereafter, he was acquitted by the competent Criminal Court. When he was involved in the death of his wife, a case was registered against him and he was suspended and the suspension period was from 27-07-2007 to 1210-2010. In the meanwhile, department also initiated proceedings by issuing charge memo. In the departmental enquiry also, the Disciplinary Authority exonerated him from the charges. Simply because the applicant was acquitted in a criminal case or he was exonerated from the charges in the departmental proceedings, it does not necessarily follow that he is entitled to treat the period of suspension as on duty for all purposes. If it is shown that the suspension of the applicant was wholly unjustified, then only he is entitled to treat the period of suspension as period ‘spent on duty’ thereby entitled to get all monetary benefits. That aspect of the case has to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority, but not by the Tribunal.

¶13

9. Counsel placed reliance on unreported judgment in W.P.No.12634 of 2014, dated 10-06-2014, wherein a direction was given to the Disciplinary Authority to take appropriate decision in terms of F.R. 54-B (3) of the Rules. If the case of the petitioner does not fall under sub-rule (3), his case can be considered under sub-rule (5) or proviso to sub=-rule (7) of the Rules. Rule 7 (c) has to be read along with G.O.Ms.No.307, Finance (FR.II) Department, dated 03-12-2012.

¶14

10. Following the said judgment, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to take appropriate decision with regard to treating of suspension period in accordance with the Rules and G.O. as stated above. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶15

K.C.BHANU, J

¶16

----------------ANIS, J DATED: 20-10-2014 Hsd

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Narasimulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Narasimulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Sree Harsheetha Granites, Vs The State Bank of India

The Union of India Vs Sri K.Sreekar Babu, S/o K.Bhaskara Rao

D.V.M.K. Prasad, Vs the State of a.P., rep by its

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Collector Vs M/s.Padmini Leasing and Investments Ltd. Regd.office

Ch.Gangadhar S/o Narayana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. v.Rama Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh