APHC010346132020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 22970/2020 Between: 1. T S NAGESWARA RAO, FATHER NAME SITA RAMAIAH O/O. SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,URBAN LAND CEILING VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT (NOW UNDER ORDERS OF DISMISSAL) R/O.VIJAYAWADA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (VIGILANCE .VII)) DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION AND SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNAMENT, D.NO.22- 19,FLOOR II,BLOCK A, JASTHI TOWERS,SAIPURAM COLONY ROAD,GOLLAPUDI, AP VIJAYAWADA-521225 KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHALIPATNAM ...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 or Order more in the nature of Mandamus in declaring the action Of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioner though the 2 petitioner has been acquitted in Criminal Appeal No.1123/2006 by the Honourable Combined High Court , of AP through its judgment dated 30.10.2018 setting aside the conviction Judgment, dated 11.08.2006, passed in C.C.No.20 of 2001 by the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, which was the cause for dismissal from service by the 1st respondent in GO Ms.No. 615 dated. 04.05.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and accordingly set aside the orders of dismissal from service GO Ms.No.615 dated. 04.05.2007 issued by the 1st respondent, as the petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Appeal No.1123/2006 by the Honourable Combined High Court of AP through its judgment dated 30.10.2018 ,with a direction to the respondents to reinstate petitioner into service and also to regularize the suspension period from 21.06.2000 to 01.06.2003 as well as the dismissal period from 04.05.2007 till orders of reinstatement as on duty as per FR 54 and 54 A and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 reinstate the petitioner into service by disposing the representations dated:26.12.2018 and 07.01.2019 in a time frame and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K R SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri K.R. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioner into service, although he was acquitted in the criminal case vide order of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in Crl.P.No.1123 of 2006 dated 30.10.2018, setting aside the conviction. The petitioner had also sought for consequential direction to reinstate and 3 regularize the suspension period from 21.06.2000 to 01.06.2003 and the period of dismissal from 04.05.2007 to the date of reinstatement into service as, „on duty‟ . 3. It is contended that after filing of the Writ Petition, the writ petitioner was reinstated on 16.02.2021 vide G.O.Ms.No.40, dropping the charges framed against the petitioner. In the light of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief sought in the writ petition to the extent of ‘reinstatement into service’ is not being pressed into service. It is further stated that the Writ Petition may be adjudicated insofar as it relates to the other relief sought by the petitioner, i.e., regularization of period of suspension as on duty. Having regard to the said statement made on behalf of the petitioner, the Writ Petition has been taken up for consideration to adjudicate the sole issue of regularization of the period of suspension of the petitioner, till the date of reinstatement. 4. The petitioner was suspended from service on 21.06.2000, on account of a criminal case registered against him for offences under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(i) r/w Section 32 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said suspension was revoked on 01.06.2003 and petitioner was reinstated into service. The Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, vide Judgment, dated 11.08.2006 convicted the petitioner and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Basing on the said conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide G.O.Ms.No.615, dated 04.05.2007. Against the said conviction, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the erstwhile High Court 4 of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.1123 of 2006. And vide Judgment, dated 30.10.2018, the appeal was allowed setting aside the conviction. It is contended that despite the said acquittal the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for reinstatement. It is contended that on account of the acquittal order passed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.1123 of 2006, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service as there was no conviction.However, it was only after filing of the writ petition the petitioner was reinstated into service vide G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 16.02.2021 However no mention has been made with regard to the treatment of period of suspension 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Judgments of this Court in W.P.No.5557 of 2021, W.P.No.10570 of 2023 and Judgment of the erstwhile Composite High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.36497 of 2018. It is further contended that in terms of FR-54A(1) of Fundamental Rules, the petitioner is entitled for pay and allowances for the period of absence from duty. 6. Considered the rival submissions. 7. For adjudication of the issue, it is relevant to refer FR-54 A(2) of Fundamental Rules which reads as follows: “FR-54 A(2): Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the Government servant who has been dismissed removed or compulsorily retired has been fully exonerated, the Government servant shall be paid full 5 pay and allowances, to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsory retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal of compulsory retirement as the case may be.” 8. It is relevant to refer to the F.R.54-A(1) of the Rules, which provides that where the dismissal or removal of government servant is set aside by a court of law and such government servant is reinstated into service without holding further enquiry, 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 the sub-rule(2) or (3) subject to the directions, if any, of the court. 9. Rule FR 54 A(3) of the Rules, provides that in a case falling under sub- rule (2) of the Rule FR-54(A), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding the dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement as the case may be shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. 10. It is further relevant to refer to Rule FR-54A(2) of the Fundamental Rules, provides that where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the view that the government servant who had been dismissed, removed or compulsory retired has been fully exonerated, the government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule(6) be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal removed or compulsorily retired as the case may be. 6 11. In the instant case, the petitioner was reinstated into service pursuant to the acquittal in the criminal case, vide the G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 16.02.2021 without holding any further enquiry, dropping the charges. In the said regard, a combined reading of Rule F.R.54-A(1) and F.R.54 A(2) of the Rules, would reflect that it is obligatory on the part of the appointing authority while passing the order of reinstatement to make a specific mention about the period of suspension and about pay and allowances payable to the petitioner for the period, he was off from duty, owing to suspension and removal/dismissal from service. However, while issuing the order of reinstatement in the case, no such observation has been made by the respondents. 12. Pending the Writ Petition, after passing of the proceedings for reinstatement, the petitioner made a representation to the authorities seeking regularization of the period of suspension with effect from 27.06.2000 to 10.06.2003 and period under dismissal 04.05.2007 to 19.02.2021 as ‘on duty‟ and sought for payment of pay and allowances for the said period. The District Collector and CCLA in terms of FR-54(A)(2) have recommended that the request of the petitioner for regularization may be considered. However, the Government vide memo, dated 11.03.2026 rejected the same, however observing that the said decision shall be subject to the outcome of the present Writ Petition. 7 13. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case on 13.10.2018, the said order of the High Court has become final. In pursuance thereof, G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 16.02.2021 was issued reinstating the petitioner into service. Vide the said G.O., the 1st respondent reinstated the petitioner into service with immediate effect and the District Collector was directed to take necessary action in the matter accordingly. At this juncture, it is very relevant to refer the Division Bench Judgment in the case of P. Augustein Vara Prasad Vs. State of AP in W.P.No.36497 of 2018, wherein it is observed as under: “The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, East Godavari District, was fully justified in treating the period of suspension under gone by the petitioner-applicant as „on duty for all purposes‟. As already pointed out, there was no justification or basis for the Government to interfere in the matter independently byt way of G.O.Rt.No.1129, dated 15.12.2014, as it was not even the competent authority under F.R.54-B and had already passed orders, vide g.O.Rt.No.1958, dated 29.10.2012, requiring the competent authority, viz., the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, East Godavari District, to do the needful as per rules.” 14. In terms of Rule FR-54A(2) of Fundamental Rules, 1922, if the competent authority to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the Government Servant who had been dismissed, removed has been fully exonerated, the Government Servant shall subject to provisions of sub rule (6), be paid the fee full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been removed or dismissed from service prior to such dismissal or removal as the case may be. And the sub rule (3) of F.R 54 further provides 8 that the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding dismissal, removal, as the case may be shall be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes. 15. On a conjoint reading of the above Rule and in the light of the judicial precedents referred supra, the respondents should have considered the period of absence of the petitioner i.e., with effect from 21.06.2000 to 01.06.2003 and a period from 04.05.2007 (the order of dismissal from service) to 16.02.2021 as ‘on duty’. 16. Having regard to the above, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to regularize the period of suspension with effect from 21.06.2000 to 01.06.2003 and a period from 04.05.2007 (the order of dismissal from service) to 16.02.2021 as „on duty‟. The said period shall be regularized and the respondents shall treat the said period as ‘on duty’ and release the consequential benefits. 17. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 07.04.2026 MSI 9 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 22970/2020 Dated: 07.04.2026 MSI