APHC010740752013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20589/2013 Between: 1. BILLA SATYA SUVARNA RAJU, SON OF B. JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (MM), RAYALASEEMA THERMAL POWER PROJECT COAL HANDLING PLANT, RESIDENT OF D-109, V.V.REDDY NAGAR, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUTH SOUDHA, HYDERABAD. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD., VIDYUTH SOUDHA, HYDERABAD. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER ADMINISTRATION, A.P.GENCO, VIDYUTH SOUDHA, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Memo No.CGM(A) /DS(A)/AS(V&R)(T)/P0- B/VC2-101/2009 dated 16.03.2013, as arbitrary, illegal and against principles of natural justice and set aside the same in so far as treating the period of suspension AS SUCH and 2 consequently direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension as on duty and release all periodical increments and regularize the pay in accordance with the rules; and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 25254 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release all periodical increments and regularize the pay of the petitioner by re-fixing the same as per revised pay scales, pending disposal of the Writ Petition; and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. K.KRISHNABUSHAN CHOWDARY SC For APGENCO The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.03.2013, whereby the respondents have reinstated the petitioner into service by removing the order of suspension. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner faced trial in P.R.C. No. 12 of 2009/Sessions Case No. 120 of 2009 and was acquitted in the said case on 26.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and filed W.P. No. 4470 of 2013, whereby this Court disposed of the writ on 14.02.2013 vide its order dated 14.02.2013. The respondents have passed the impugned proceedings by reinstating the petitioner. However, it is held that the period of suspension of the petitioner from 27.02.2009 to 25.10.2010 shall be treated “as such” and the period shall be counted for all his service benefits. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Rule 57, which is applicable to the employees of the respondent-Corporation, would categorically mandate the respondents to extend full pay and allowances for the period of suspension when the said suspension was found to be unjustified. It is submitted that, on the facts of this case, the petitioner was falsely implicated in a crime which was registered against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 363, 341 and 376 read with 511 of IPC. 4 4. It is submitted that the complainant/P.W.1 had turned hostile along with other witnesses and the prosecution could not prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated and arrested in a false case, and the respondents had suspended him with effect from 27.02.2009. It is submitted that the respondents ought to have reinstated the petitioner soon after the petitioner being acquitted in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2009 on 26.08.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for full wages and allowances for the period of suspension in terms of Rule No. 57 of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that a counter is filed, duly narrating the reasons for passing the impugned order. It is submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension on account of his involvement in a criminal case with serious allegations. He was also remanded to judicial custody for more than 48 hours, and in terms of Regulation 11(b) of APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, the petitioner was placed under suspension. 6. It is submitted that departmental enquiry was not initiated as the criminal case was already registered and it was felt appropriate to leave the issue to the police department to conduct investigation and prosecute the accused. The respondents have imposed the punishment of not considering the period of suspension as on duty as the petitioner's conduct has not disrupted the respondent organization. 5 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 8. The only ground on which the petitioner was placed under suspension is that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case with serious allegations and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. However, as seen from the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court, Vijayawada on 26.08.2010, all the witnesses including P.W.1 turned hostile and P.W.1 had stated that her signatures were obtained on white papers which were subsequently marked as Ex.P1, the complaint filed before the police. The other witnesses also did not support the case of the prosecution and as such the petitioner was acquitted of all charges and the acquittal cannot be considered as a technical acquittal. The reasons assigned by the respondents for not considering and implementing Rule 57 insofar as the petitioner’s case is concerned is that his involvement in the criminal case has brought disruption to the respondent organization cannot be considered by this Court and Rule 57 does not facilitate the respondents in exceptional circumstances for denying full pay and allowances when the suspension is revoked. 9. Considering that Rule No. 57 would mandate and entitle the employee for full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended, as the case may be, the respondents ought to have extended the full pay and allowances to which the petitioner is entitled. The impugned proceedings dated 6 16.03.2013 shall stand modified to the extent of treating the petitioner's period of suspension, i.e., from 27.02.2009 to 25.10.2010, as on duty for all purposes and the petitioner shall be extended the service benefits for the period of suspension from 27.02.2009 to 25.10.2010. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 06.04.2026 PNS