The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's refusal to treat a suspension period as 'on duty'. The Court held that under Fundamental Rule 54-B(7), as amended in 2006, suspension periods post-amendment cannot be treated as on duty but can only be treated as leave.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI
WRIT PETITION No.43184 of 2016
ORDER: (per SK, J)
Petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.7494 of 2014 before
the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was dismissed by order dated 02.08.2016.
The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was with regard to how the period of suspension undergone by her was treated. According to her, the punishment of withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect visited upon her was set aside in appeal by the Government and pursuant to the same, the Superintendent, Office of the Director of Insurance Medical Services, Andhra Pradesh, issued revised order dated 05.12.2011 recording that the punishment imposed upon her was set aside and that the suspension period was treated as on duty for all purposes. However, thereafter, the Superintendent, Office of the Director of Insurance Medical Services, Andhra Pradesh, issued memo dated 18.10.2013 referring to the Government Memo dated 27.08.2013 with regard to how the period of suspension undergone by the petitioner was to be treated and
SK, J & NBY, J W.P.No.43184 of 2016
2
asking the petitioner to submit a leave application so as to convert the suspension period as leave period. It is not in dispute that the Government, while allowing the petitioner’s appeal and setting aside the punishment imposed upon her, directed that the suspension undergone by her should be regularized under Fundamental Rule 54-B(7). The Tribunal found that in terms of Fundamental Rule 54-B(7), the period of suspension undergone could not be treated as on duty and, at best, it could be treated as leave period as per the entitlement of the employee.
In that view of the matter, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere. Upon consideration of the facts, we see no irregularity in the approach of the Tribunal inasmuch as the rule position is clear that after the amendment of Fundamental Rule 54-B(7) in the year 2006, the period of suspension covered thereby cannot be treated as on duty. Under the proviso thereto, such period can however be treated as leave as per the entitlement of the employee. The order passed by the Tribunal therefore does not warrant interference on any ground.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, we make it clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the State of Telangana for appropriate relief in accordance with law, if so advised.
SK, J & NBY, J W.P.No.43184 of 2016
3
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand
dismissed. No order as to costs.
___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J
18th JANUARY, 2017.
_______________ N. BALAYOGI, J
kvni
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the period of suspension undergone by the petitioner could be treated as on duty or only as leave period under Fundamental Rule 54-B(7).
Whether the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal erred in law by declining to treat the suspension period as on duty.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State of Telangana
SANJAY KUMAR
N. BALAYOGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
