Allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Krishna, Arhc 1008

Telangana HC22 Jan 2014WP/34725/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition filed by an Armed Reserve Head Constable challenging a Tribunal order. The petitioner was dismissed based on a conviction subsequently set aside on appeal. The court directed the government to treat the period between acquittal and reinstatement (08.05.2003 to 24.04.2005) as 'on duty' with consequential benefits, holding the government liable for the delay in rei

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to treat period 08.05.2003 to 24.04.2005 as 'on duty'; benefits to be paid within two months.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs N… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.34725 of 2013

¶3

ORDER (per RSR,J):

¶4

This writ petition is filed by the respondents in O.A.No.7948 of 2010 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2012.

¶5

The first respondent herein is an Armed Reserve Head Constable. A case was registered against him in Crime No.278 of 1993 under Section 498-A r/w 114 I.P.C based on a complaint given by his wife and investigation was taken up. In view of registration of crime, he was placed under suspension on 08.07.1994. Simultaneously, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated and charge memo dated 09.08.1994 was issued. In response to the said charge memo, he submitted his explanation. The disciplinary authority, dissatisfied with his explanation, appointed an Enquiry Officer. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the first respondent was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years vide judgment dated 12.09.1997 in C.C.No.398 of 1994 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Nizamabad. In view of the conviction recorded against him, he was dismissed

¶6

from service w.e.f 28.11.1997. Challenging his conviction and sentence, he carried the matter in appeal in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 1997 before the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. The said appeal was allowed and he was acquitted by judgment dated 24.02.2003.

¶7

Consequent to his acquittal, the first respondent submitted a representation dated 08.05.2003 to the petitioners to reinstate him into service. As no orders of reinstatement were passed, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.3969 of 2004 and thereafter, he was reinstated into service vide order dated 24.04.2005. Thereafter, the first respondent made a representation dated 14.07.2008 to the Government for dropping departmental proceedings against him and to treat the period of suspension and out of employment period as ‘on duty’. On such representation, the Government passed orders in G.O.Rt.No.1387, Home (Ser.III) Department, dated 11.08.2010, dropping further disciplinary proceedings and treating the period of suspension and out of employment as ‘not on duty’. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.7948 of 2010. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, while setting set aside G.O.Rt.No.1387, dated 11.08.2010 insofar as the treatment of period of suspension and dismissal as not on duty, directed the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 08.07.1994 to 19.10.1994 and also the period of dismissal

¶8

from 28.11.1997 to 09.05.2005 as ‘on duty’ with all consequential benefits. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶9

Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent-applicant submits that when the dismissal order was passed based on the conviction recorded by the trial Court and such conviction was set aside by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal, there is no reason for not reinstating the first respondentapplicant immediately. He further submits that, at least for the period from 08.05.2003 i.e., the date on which the first respondent made representation till the date of reinstatement, he is entitled to all benefits. He fairly submits that the first respondent is not entitled to claim the benefits from 08.07.1994 to 19.10.1994 and from 28.11.1997 to 08.05.2003. He further submits that the case of the first respondent is not covered by Fundamental Rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules

¶10

Fundamental Rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules reads as under:

¶11

“F.R.54-A (1) Where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by a Court of law and such Government servant is reinstated without holding any further inquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularized and the Government servant shall be paid pay and allowances in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) or (3) subject to the directions, if any, of the Court.

¶12

(2) (i) Where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the court solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of clause (1) or clause (2) of article 311 of the Constitution, and where he is not exonerated on

¶13

merits, the pay and allowances payable to the Government servant for the period of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement or suspension prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be limited to the subsistence allowance entitled / already paid under FR 53 for the entire period during which the Government servant was not on duty.

¶14

(ii) The period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of judgment of the Court shall be regularized in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (5) of Rule 54.

¶15

(3) If the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on the merits of the case, the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid the full pay and allowances for the period to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be.

¶16

[provided that back wages to a suspended/dismissed employee can not be paid as a matter of course in cases where the employee has been acquitted by the courts on benefit of doubt.]

¶17

(4) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible.

¶18

(5) Any payment made under this rule to a Government servant on his reinstatement shall be subject to adjustment of the amount if any, earned by him through an employment during the period between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and the date of reinstatement. Where the emoluments admissible under this rule are equal to or less than those earned during the employment elsewhere, nothing shall be paid to the Government servant.”

¶19

In this case, it is to be noticed that on account of registration of a criminal case in Crime No.278 of 1993 for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 114 I.P.C against the first respondent and his arrest in connection with the said crime, he was placed under suspension for the period from 08.07.1994 to 19.10.1994. During the pendency of the departmental proceedings, he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, and therefore, he was dismissed from service vide orders dated 27.11.1997. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the first respondent against the conviction and sentence was allowed and he was acquitted vide judgment dated 24.02.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 1997 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. The period of suspension during the pendency of trial and the period of dismissal after his conviction by the competent Criminal Court cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, he is not entitled for any benefits. But, at the same time, as rightly contended by Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent, the first respondent was dismissed from service pursuant to conviction recorded by the competent Criminal Court. There is no reason or any explanation for the delay in reinstatement of the first respondent after his acquittal in criminal appeal. When the order of dismissal is not passed on the findings in the

¶20

departmental enquiry, the petitioners having dismissed the first respondent based on his conviction in criminal case, ought to have reinstated him immediately after his acquittal in the criminal appeal.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, instead of remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the Government and to put a quietus to the litigation, we deem it appropriate to modify the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as under:

¶22

The petitioners are directed to treat the period from 08.05.2003 to 24.04.2005 as “on duty" with all consequential benefits. The benefits for the aforesaid period shall be paid to the first respondent within a period of two months from today.

¶23

Subject to the above modification of the impugned order, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.

¶25

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶26

A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶27

Date: 22.01.2014 va

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.34725 of 2013 (Order of the Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subhash

¶30

Reddy)

¶31

Date: 22.01.2014

¶32

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Krishna, Arhc 1008

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Krishna, Arhc 1008

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

I.Veerabrahmam Vs The District Tribal Welfare Officer

V. Pullaiah Vs The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare

N.Giridhar S/o Dasthagiri, Vs The Registrar

The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Vs Shaik Raharnad

The Director General of Police, Vs P.Damodararao PC-335

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs M.Uma Devi