::1:: APHC010016972020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1125/2020 Between: 1. I RAM BABU, S/O CHANDRANNA, AGE 35 YEARS, OCC. VETERINARY ASSISTANT, VETERINARY DISPENSARY, KOMARAGIRI U-KTOHAPALLY (MANDAL) E. GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINDA. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, LABBIPETA NEAR RAMESH HOSPITAL, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...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 ::2:: particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, by declaring the entire action of the 1st respondent in issuing the present impugned order vide Proc. Re. No.380/S/2017, dated 30.7.2019, wherein rejecting the genuine claim of the petitioner to consider the period of suspension be treated as on duty, despite of set-a-siding the suspension proceeding dated 24.11.2017 of the 1st respondent by the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 3272/2017 dated 5.2.2018 is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, colorable exercise of power, contrary to provisions of fundamental rules including contrary to various judicial pronouncements in the subject matter if necessary set-a- side the same, and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the suspension period as on duty by duly regularizing said period for all the purposes in view of set-a-siding the suspension proceeding dated 24.11.201 issued by the 1st respondent by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY (AP) ::3:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.1125 of 2020 This Court made the following ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basing on a false complaint of one Kum. C. Bhuvaneswari, R/o Gidhpally Village, Chittoor District, Ramakuppam Police registered FIR No.3/2017 on 08.01.2017 and arrested the petitioner on 11.01.2017 even without disclosing any reasons, while the petitioner was on duty at Veterinary Hospital, Alamurru and detained him till 14.01.2017. Thereon the petitioner was produced before the competent Court. Accordingly, the petitioner was sent for judicial custody on 14.01.2017. The petitioner got released on bail on 27.01.2017 and he was reported to duty on 31.01.2017 before the concerned veterinary officer. However, the concerned officer, without allowing the petitioner into duty, sought clarification from the higher authorities. The petitioner submitted his explanation for arrest on 10.06.2017, wherein stating the reasons for his arrest and judicial custody. Thereon the 1st Respondent issued order dated 01.08.2017, wherein requested the Dy. Director of Animal ::4:: Husbandry, Rajamahendravaram to admit the petitioner into duty. Accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to discharge his duties. 2. While the matter stood thus, the 1st Respondent issued suspension order dated 24.11.2017 by mentioning the reason of his arrest and judicial remand for more than 48 hours in Cr.No.3/2017. Aggrieved by the said suspension order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3272/2017 before APAT and the Hon’ble APAT allowed the said OA vide its order dated 05.02.2018 and set aside the suspension proceedings issued by the 1st Respondent and further directed to reinstate into service within a period of four weeks. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into duty vide orders dated 18.04.2018 and the petitioner joined duty on 27.04.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after petitioner’s joining into service he made a representation dated 17.06.2019 to the 1st Respondent requesting for regularization of his suspension period between 24.11.2017 to 26.04.2018 and also requested for payment of salary by enclosing all necessary documents. However, the 1st Respondent without assigning any reasons, simply rejected the claim of the petitioner by mentioning FR 54(B) (7) vide present impugned memo Roc.No.380/S/2017, dated 30.07.2019. Hence the writ petition. ::5:: 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services filed counter on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and stated as under: “Further the individual was given representation to Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, East Godavari District, Kakinada for treating the suspension period as on duty. In this regard the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, East Godavari District, Kakinada 3rd Respondent reject his representation under FR 54(B)(7). The Fundamental Rule 54(B)(7) States that the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose. Provided that if the Government Servant so desires, such authority may order that the period of suspension shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government Servant.” 5. It is clear and categorical that as the suspension proceedings dated 24.11.2017 was set aside vide order dated 05.02.2018 by APAT, the petitioner sought for regularization of the suspension period as on duty. In A.V. Vinod Kumar vs. Executive Committee of the Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi and Another1 the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that the disciplinary authority has the discretion/power to treat the period of suspension as on duty while imposing minor punishment. In the present case, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were dropped consequently all further proceedings were set aside including the punishment imposed. Thus, there is no justification for not treating the suspension period as on duty. In view of the same 1 (2007) 5 ALD 445 ::6:: the disciplinary authority failed to exercise the discretion vested in it properly, particularly in the absence of any finding by the enquiry officer that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances observed as above, the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.380/S/2017, dated 30.07.2019 is set aside. The respondents are directed to regularize the suspension period as on duty and to grant of all consequential benefits. The respondents further directed to treat the suspension period as duty and release the budget for the purpose of all pay and allowances, thus computed, shall be paid within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand Closed _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 16.04.2026 krk ::7:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.1125 of 2020 DT: 16.04.2026 krk 114