APHC010285492023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.14630 OF 2023 Between: 1. J Hari Babu, S/o. J.Venkatrayudu, Aged about 65years, Occ. Assistant Conservator of Forest (Retd), R/o. D. No.1- 48, Sivalayam Backside, Kothapet, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of A.P., Represented by its Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology, Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, K.M. Munshi Road, Nagarampalem, Guntur District. 4. The Chief Conservator of forest, Rajamundry Circle, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 5. The Accountant General, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Enikepadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 6. The Commissioner of Enquiries, Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for the Respondents: The G.P. FOR SERVICES I 2 WP_14630_2023 The Court made the following ORDER: (per Hon’ble NJS,J) The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not implementing the orders of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A. No.764 of 2018 dated 26.4.2018 treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as on duty with full pay and allowances is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Rule 54–B of Fundamental Rules and Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared through online. Also heard Mr.R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services–I representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the order dated 26.4.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.764 of 2018 and submits that the said order has become final, but so far the respondents have not implemented the same and as such the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition. She has also drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.8 of the said order, which reads as follows: 8. I am conscious of the fact that the applicant was imposed a punishment, but it is a minor punishment of 2% cut in pension for three years. Had it been a major penalty, may be the conclusion would have been different regarding treatment of the period of suspension. Therefore, in my considered view, the applicant is entitled for treating the period of suspension as duty with full pay and allowances. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant regarding treatment of the period of suspension and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, made submissions by referring to the averments made in the counter 3 WP_14630_2023 affidavit and the Memo dated 03.9.2020 of the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec.IV) Department, which was issued pursuant to the orders of the learned Tribunal referred to above. He submits that as the learned Tribunal had directed the respondents therein inter alia to consider the case of the applicant with regard to period of suspension and pass appropriate orders, after taking the relevant rule position into consideration, the Memo dated 03.9.2020 was issued treating the suspension period of the writ petitioner from 29.11.2012 to 05.3.2013 as “Not on duty”. He submits that a copy of the Memo dated 03.9.2020 was communicated to the writ petitioner and in the light of the said Memo issued in pursuance of the orders of the learned Tribunal, the relief sought for in the present writ petition is misconceived. While drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph No.9 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, wherein a reference was made to the Memo dated 03.9.2020, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that if at all the petitioner has any grievance, appropriate remedies available in law ought to have been invoked, but no steps were taken. Making the said submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader seeks dismissal of the writ petition. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would take steps to challenge the Memo dated 03.9.2020. Be that as it may. 5. On a consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, the undisputed fact is that pursuant to the orders of the learned Tribunal, Memo dated 03.9.2020 was issued by treating the suspension period of the writ petitioner as “Not on duty”. In the light of the said Memo and as rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, if the petitioner has any grievance appropriate steps should have been taken to challenge the said Memo. 4 WP_14630_2023 6. Admittedly, the respondents have passed orders pursuant to the orders of the learned Tribunal dated 26.4.2018. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner may work out his remedies against the Memo dated 03.9.2020, in accordance with Law, if he is so advised. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J August 12, 2025 vasu