APHC010222962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) wm \ X I: MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE // PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12132 OF 2025 Between: K. Aslam Basha, S/o. Dasthagiri Saheb, ages about 63 years, Rtd. School Assistant (Eng) Z.P.H.School, Kandukuru, Ananthapur Rural, Ananthapur District. Ananthapur District. R/o. 13-1-683, Revenue Colony, Ananthapur, ...Petitioner AND 1. The state of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings. Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada-521456. 3. The District Educational Officer, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 4. The Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Saifabad, Hyderabad 5. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Govt, of A.P.^ Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. 6. The Head Master, ZPH School, Kandukuru Ananthapur Rural, Ananthapur District. 7. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary, Finance Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, and Planning Department, Amaravathi, Guntur District ...Respondents 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 Rc.No.1734/Estt.lV/2018, proceedings in dt.19.02.2019 of the 2nd respondent and proceedings in Rc.No.21/(A3)A5/2010 dated 21.03.2019 issued by the respondent is treating the suspension period of the petitioner from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 ( 1 year 5 months 14 days) as eligible leave (at the credit of the 3rd teacher on 05.01.2011) and in not treating the suspension period as on duty (compulsory wait) from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 (1 year 5 months 14 days) though the petitioner acquittal in session case No 331/2011 vide Judgment dt.19.12.2013 by the Hon'ble 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapur is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to Fundamental Rules, orders of this Hon’ble Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India also contrary to and violation of and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to treating the suspension period from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 (1 year 5 months 14 days) as on duty (Compulsory wait) with all consequential benefits lA NO: 1 OF 2(]9fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court suspend the proceedings in Rc.No.1734/Estt.lV/2018, dt.19.02.2019 2nd respondent and proceedings in Rc.No.21/(A3)A5/2010 dated 21.03.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent and direct the may be pleased to of the respondents to treating the suspension period from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 (1 duty (Compulsory wait) pending disposal of the writ petition. year 5 months 14 days) as on Counsel for the Petitioner: V SESHA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No. 7: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: APHC010222962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] li-.’ MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12132/2025 Between: K. Aslam Basha, ...PETITIONER AND The Of State Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VSESHA KUMAR! Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II 2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2 % The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:- “...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the proceedings in Rc.No.1734/Estt IV/2018 dt 19.02.2019 of the 2"^ respondent and proceedings in Rc.No.21/A3A5/2010 dated 21.03.2019 issued by the 3"^ respondent is treating the suspension period of the petitioner from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 1 year 5 months 14 days as eligible leave-at the credit of the teacher on 05.01.2011 and in not treating the suspension period as on duty compulsory wait from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 1 year 5 months 14 days though the petitioner acquittal in session case No. 331/2011 vide Judgment dt.19.12.2013 by the Honble Additional Sessions Judge Ananthapur is illegal arbitrary unjust and contrary to Fundamental Rules also contrary to orders of this Honble Court and the Honble Apex Court and violation of Article 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to treating the suspension period from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 1 year 5 months 14 days as on duty Compulsory wait with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders....” Heard Smt.V.Sesha Kumari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 2. 3. Petitioner while working as School Assistant, was placed under suspension by proceedings dated 05.01.2011 as he was involved in crime No.509 of 2010 for offences under Sections 498A, 307 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The suspension account of petitioner being arrested on 30.12.2010 and later been enlodged ^n bail. Thereafter, petitioner came to be reinstated into service on 19.06.2012. Petitioner has participated in the trial and thereafter he has been was on acquitted in SC.No.331 of 2011 by judgement I Additional Sessions Judge superannuated on 31.01.2023. Thereafter respondents for treating the period of 19.06.2012 as on duty with all dated 19.12.2013 passed by and meanwhile, got petitioner made representation to at Ananthapur, suspension from 06.01.2011 to consequential benefits. As the same was not considered, he preferred O.A.No.2567 Administrative Tribunal, which of 2018 before Andhra Pradesh came to be disposed by orders dated 29.11.2018 directing the respondents to consider the said representation. 19.02.2019 & 21.03.2019 for leave. Assailing the However, the respondents passed orders dated holding that the period of suspension only be eligible same, petitioner preferred present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of FR 54 B the period of suspension, in present facts of the case has to be construed to be duty and also placed reliance on Division Bench Judgement of 2014 and therefore urge to aiiow the writ petition in terms of the same. on in W.P.No.28451 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government for respondents does not refute the Pleader appearing factum of petitioner being under suspension in view of involvement in criminai case which iater ended in acquittai. However, he contends that considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents have granted relief of considering the aforesaid period to be eligible for leave which cannot be found fault with. 4 The issue as to whether, when an employee is found to be acquitted as not being guilty of any misconduct or any crime, it would be unreasonable to withhold the loss he would suffer on account of accounting of the period of suspension, is now succinctly dealt with by a Full Bench decision which was 6. followed by this Court in W.P.No.21334 of 2021 in Para 6 which held as follows; 6. As per Full Bench decision of this Court in “District Manager, APSRTC V. Labour Court, Guntur”1, wherein it was held as follows:- “Where an employee has been found in a regular trial, not to be guilty of any misconduct or commission of any crime or other misconduct, it will be wholly unreasonable to hold that the employee should still suffer the loss of remuneration and other benefits for the period of his suspension which merges in his order of acquittal. It amounts to sanctioning and awarding punishment to an innocent party, (para 11) The order of suspension merges in and automatically ceases to be operative upon the passing of the final order of acquittal In criminal proceedings. The effect of such a merger would clearly revive the temporarily suspended rights of the employee to get his full remuneration @ Page-AP133 for the period of his suspension.(para 12) From the reason of the fact that interim suspension cannot legally be a measure of punishment flows the right of the employee to full remuneration” In view of the aforesaid view, the same has been later followed by Division Bench of this Court. In view of the same and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition succeeds, the impugned order dated 19.02.2019 & 21.03.2019 are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the period of suspension from 06.01.2011 to 19.06.2012 as on duty. Further, respondents are directed to pay allowances with consequential benefits to the petitioner in terms of FR 54 B within a I 7. 5 period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order strictly in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VENU GOPAL RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, state of Andhra Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Secretariat Buildings. Pradesh District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Government of Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada-521456. Educational Officer, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Saifabad, Hyderabad and Accounts, Govt, of A.P. Ibrahimpatnam, Andhra 3. The District -4. The 5. The Director of Treasuries Vijayawada. 6. The Head Master, ZPH School, Kandukuru Ananthapur Rural, Ananthapur District. 7. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary, Finance Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, and Planning Department Amaravathi, Guntur District M/s V Sesha Kumari Advocate [OPUC] GP for Services II High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. One CC to 9. Two CCs to 10.Two CCs to 11.Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:23/06/2025 ORDER WP NO. 12132 OF 2025 t ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS