I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ^ FRIDAY. THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY , TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT > io o ^4^ THE honourable DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nn.c: 39460 AND 39461 OF 9099 Between: K^subba Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Mazdoor, in the ffice of Deputy Executive Engineer, Drainage Sub-Division, Akividu West Godavari District - ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary rngation (Dramage) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District. 2. The Executive Engineer, Drainage Division Godavari District. 3. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Godavari District Bhimavaram, West Drainage Sub-Division, Akividu, West ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 that in the circumstances stated i Court may be pleased more of the Constitution of India in the affidavit filed therewith is filed praying the High an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction nature of Mandamus, declaring the respondent. to issue particularly one in the Proceedings of the 2'"'^ dt.22.11.2022 vide Memo imposing punishment against the NO.AB/EC.II/CF/1997DD in i iiiogal, arbitrary. petitioner as provisions of Service Law contrary to the and consequently set-aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 that in the 151 CPC is filed praying Petition under Section circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petit,on the suspend the impugned Proceedings of the NO.AB/EC.11/CF/1997DD, High Court may be pleased to a"” Respondent, dt-22.11.2022 vide Memo pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI M. PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3; GP FOR SERVICES III WRIT PETITION NO: 39460 OF 2022 Between; Sundara Pulla Rao years, Occ Mazdoor, In the Sub-Division, Palakole, West Godavari District S/o.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Aged about 38 office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Drainage ...PETITIONER AND Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, 1. The State of Andhra Irrigation (Drainage) Department Guntur District. 2. The Executive Engineer, Drainage Godavari District. 3. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Godavari District. Division, Bhimavaram, West Drainage Sub-Division, Palakole, West ...RESPONDENTS 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying affidavit filed therewith, the High Petition under Article that in the circumstances stated in the court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings of the 2"" respondent, dt.22.11.2022 vide Memo No.AB/EC.ll/CF/1997D D in n / imposing punishment against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Service Law and consequently set-aside the lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Proceedings of the 2 Respondent, dt.22.11.2022 vide Memo No.AB/EC.II/CF/1997DD, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES III same. nd WRIT PETITION NO: 39461 OF 2022 Between: Mutyalapalli Anjaneyulu, S/o.Mutyalapalli Parraju, Aged about 39 Occ. Mazdoor, In the office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Drainage Sub- Division, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. years. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation (Drainage) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 3. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Drainage Sub-Division, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings of the 2 nd respondent, dt .22.11.2022 vide Memo No.AB/EC.II/CF/1997DD iin imposing punishment against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Service Law and consequently set-aside the lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent, dt.22.11.2022 vide Memo No.AB/EC.II/CF/1997DD, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER same. 1 APHC010661512022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HlJiS [3310] / FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos: 39458, 39460 & 39461 of 2022 W.P.No.39458 of 2022: Between: 1.K SUBBA RAO, S/0. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. MAZDOOR, IN THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE SUB-DIVISION, AKIVIDU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION (DRAINAGE) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE DIVISION, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3.THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE SUB-DIVISION, AKIVIDU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES III 2 W.P.No.39460 of 2022: Between: 1.SUNDARA PULLA RAO, S/O.VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. OCC MAZDOOR, IN THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. PALAKOLE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT DRAINAGE SUB-DIVISION. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION (DRAINAGE) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE DIVISION, BHIMAVARAM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3.THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE SUB-DIVISION, PALAKOLE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT{S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES III W.P.No.39461 of 2022: Between: 1.MUTYALAPALLI ANJANEYULU. S/O.MUTYALAPALLI PARRAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. MAZDOOR. IN THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. DRAINAGE SUB-DIVISION, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION (DRAINAGE) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE DIVISION, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3.THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE SUB-DIVISION, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S); Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The Writ Petition No.39458 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief; to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings of the 2"'' respondent, dt. 22.11.2022 vide Memo NO.AB/EC.II/CF/1997DD in imposing punishment against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Service Law and consequently set-aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.’’ St The Writ Petition No.39460 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief; St to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings of the 2'”^ respondent, dt. 22.11.2022 vide Memo NO.AB/EC.II/CF/1997DD in imposing punishment against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Service Law and consequently set-aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ” The Writ Petition No.39461 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief; 4 V, “ to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings of the 2"’^ respondent, dt. 22.11.2022 vide Memo NO.AB/EC.II/CF/1997DD in imposing punishment against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Service Law and consequently set-aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ” 2. Heard Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-lll appearing for the respondents. 3. On hearing, it is conjointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader that the issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.1823 of 2021, dated 18.10.2024. 4. In view of the submissions made by both the petitioners’ counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Court is inclined to allow the present Writ Petitions also, in terms of the said Order dated 18.10.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 1823 of 2021. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned proceeding vide Memo No.AB/EC.II/CF/1997DD dated 22.11.2022 issued by the 2"^^ respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to regularize the suspension period of the petitioners from 16.05.2012 to 09.10.2018 and 10.10.2018 to 06.03.2019 as ‘On Duty’ for all the purposes including the arrears of pay and allowances, increments and promotion etc., in b m terms of Fundamental Rule 54(B)(3) and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 6. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the Order in Writ Petition 7. No.1823 of 2021, dated 18.10.2024, to this Order. Sd/- B. CHITTl JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, Irrigation (Drainage) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Drainage Sub-Division, Akividu, West Godavari District. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Drainage Sub-Division, Palakole, West Godavari District. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Drainage Sub-Division, Tadepaltigudem, West Godavari District. One CC to S^ri M. Pitchaiah, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Services-lll, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] ThreeCD Copies. (Along with a copy of the order in W.P. No.1823 of 2021, dated 18.10.2024 to this order) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:21/02/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.39458, 39460 and 39461 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 1 4 APHC010025832021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY .THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1823/2021 HliiB [3310] RAO Between: Pilli Veera Venkata Satya Kumar ...PETITIONER AND State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: ...RESPONDENT(S) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution following relief; of India for the CERTIORAR?cSnngfor'JieVeco?d?pertLi°nTtlfth^ particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF C No 8791/A1/2020 dated 28 10 2020 and n P';°^®®dings issued by the Respondent No 3 vide 03/OE/PR/2011 R O No lS/2016 dated Respondent No 2 vide C No promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police desnita Ih candidature of the petitioner for proved apart from taking 00^0 aSlanSae hatS^^^^^^^^^^^ 2. The grievance of the petitioner Constable at Yeleswaram Police Station i by the 3 respondent from that the then Station House Officer, extracting money from the villagers the petitioner was put under When the k- is that while he was working as an anonymous petition was received the general public of Yeleswaram village alleging Sub Inspector of Police N.Pothuraju even for simple disputes. Basing on that suspension from 30.05.2010 to 20.07.2010. are suspension is in progress, the Departmental enquiry was enquiry, the 3'"^ respondent called for conducted. During pendency of the said willingness letter from the eligible candidates for sending them to pre in which the petitioner given respondent vide proceedings dated 6.4.2016 has concluded that petitioner are not proved and hence further promotional training fit to act as head constables willingness and he was sent for training. The 2 in C.NO.03/0E-PR/2011 R.O.No.199/2016 nd the charges leveled against the proceedings were dropped and the Duty. suspension period is treated as Not on While the things stood thus, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to consider his candidature Inspector of Police other hand the procession witnesses proved. Therefore, the case in CC No.298/2016 which to be promoted as Assistant Sub as no charges leveled against him were proved and on the who turned hostile in the enquiry is not was registered against the petitioner was ended acquittal. In fact the 2 proceedings dated 6.4.2016 itself dropped petitioner. When the 2"^ respondent has nd respondent through its the proceedings against the dropped the proceedings as the 3 charges were not proved against the petitioner, the period of suspension i.e,. 30.05.2010 to 20.07.2010 cannot be treated as Not on Duty, which is iHegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, submitted that, under Rule 8 where suspension is revoked exonerating a person fully his/her case may be considered for promotion with retrospective where the disciplinary proceedings finally resulted in a penalty he will debarred during the period of penalty and subject to a minimum period of one year from the date of reinstatement. In case, the suspension period itself, is treated as substantive penalty, he shall be debarred for promotion/appointment by transfer by a period of one year both the selection and non selection post. It is further submitted that the treating of suspension period not on punishment as per the G.O.Ms.No 331 Genl. Admn. (Ser.C) Dept. dt.03.05.2013 shall be considered with prospective effect only. Further he has issued with speaking orders explaining the reasons for not considering for his promotion as follows: “HC 970 Sri. P.V.V.Satya Kumar of Rangarripeta PS has submitted a representation indude his name in the seniority list for promotion from HCs to ASIs in view of the order dated 23.07.2020 in W.P.No.12103 of 2020 of the Hob'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. j In this connection, he is hereby informed that he was placed under After suspension A/N to 20.07.2010 FN for the delinquency of duties, conducting oral enquiry the disciplinary authority (i.e.,) Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru has passed final orders vide proceedings R.O.No.199/2016 {C.No.3/OEPR/2011) dt.06.04.2016 dropping 4 further action against the charged officer but the period of suspension under went by charged officer from 30.05.2010 A/N to 20.07.2010 FN was treated as not on duty as the prosecution witnesses Further, the Govt, in G.O.Ms.No. turned hostile in the enquiry. 3' cited, have issued orders that, the promotion shall be considered with prospective effect only in respect of the cases where ii) Charges were dropped using the words such warning, benefit of doubt etc. In this as let off. case, the OE was not proved due to action was dropped turned hostile of prosecution witnesses and hence further and the period of suspension from 30.05.2010 AN to 20.07.2010 FN treated as "NOT ON DUTY" and it is not clean exoneration from the OE charge. Hence, the representation of petitioner for inciuding was of his name in the seniority list of HCs fit to act as ASIs with retrospective effect i and rejected. IS considered 4. Heard Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel petitioner and Ms. P. Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Services-I appearing for the respondents. appearing for the Pleader for 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while contents made in the petition, has placed reliance reiterating the a judgment of High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad reported in K.Ram Prasad and on Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda and others', wherein it was held that: period of suspension as not on duty, which is highly arbitrary and urjusfxhe Go" ernme'nt IS not the considered several cases WP No. 19286 of 2017, dated 22.11.2022 b of other Sis/Inspectors, who were red-handedly trapped by ACB and treated their suspension period as on duty soon after their acquittal. As per the instruction issued, vide Govt Memo No.34911/Ser.ll/A3 /2011, dated 22.05.2013 communicated through Chief Office Endt.No.4126/Appeal-1/2011, dated 21.06.2013 the 4th respondent issued directions to issue dissenting note to the petitioner and .Ramnarsaiah, SI of police (Retired) under Rule 21(2) ARCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and indicated the charges are held proved and then refer the issue with further explanation of the Charged Officers to Government for finalizing the case under Rule 9 of AP Revised Rules, 1980. 6. Whereas, learneci Assistant Government Pleacder also while reiterating the averments in the counter, has placecd reliance on a (decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Shri B.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana^, wherein the Apex Court held that: The appellant in that case had been exonerated of the charges framed against him in a departmental enquiry. Government held, however, that the appellant's suspension and the departmental enquiry instituted against him "were not wholly, unjustified". This Court held that cl. (b) of the Fundamental Rule 54 would be applicable in all cases where the officer concerned is not honourably acquitted. Since in that case the Government servant had clearly not been fully exonerated of the charges levied against him, it was open to Government to decide what period of absence from duty during the period of suspension should be treated as period spent on duty and, also, what proportion of pay and allowances should be given to him. This decision cannot apply to the instant case for the simple reason that Government, by withdrawing the proceedings initiated against the appellant in (1) Civil Appeals Nos. 1561 and 1562 of 1965 decided by the Supreme Court on 6 October 1967. respect of Charge 1(b), made it impossible for the appellant to get himself fully exonerated. Since the appellant had been exonerated of Charge 1(a) and since Charge 1(b) was withdrawn, it is impossible for Government to proceed on the basis as if the appellant has not been fully exonerated or to assume that the order of suspension was one which was not wholly unjustified.In that view of the matter, we do not think that case of the State of Assam and Anr. v. Raghava Rajagopalachari (supra) can be of any assistance to the respondents. Peruse(d the material on record. 7. As seen from the impugned Memo in C.No.8791/A1/2020, dated 8. 28.10.2020, wherein it was mentioned that: "Further, the govt, in G.O.ms.No.331 Genl.Admn.(Ser.C) dated 03.05.2013, issued orders that the promotion shall be considered with prospective effect only in respect of the cases where (i) Charges were dropped using the words such as let off, warning, benefit of doubt etc. - AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2472 6 dropp'eVand“'e il?ofTuspTnrn\"oml farther action was not clean exoneration from the OE charge HenS thi pewS renr^^^^^^ and it is sen,ordy,istofHCsmtoactasASIs^thrLspec“e effecfi^^^^^^^^^^ -- in the 9. And as seen from the 6.4.2016, issued by the 2 consequential impugned proceedings, dated nd respondent, wherein it was mentioned that “..vide reference 3^^ cited, holding that the charge against the charged officer Sri P-V.VS.Kumar, PC 970. formerly Yeleswara PS and now working in Gandepalli PS of East Godavari District as “Not Proved". 10. It is pertinent to mention here that Rule (3) (4) and (5) reads as under; Fundamental Rule 54-B sub- (3) Where the authority competent to order unjustified, the Government servant shall subject to the rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances reinstatement is of the opinion that the provisions of sub suspension was wholly to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended: ™ "" of ,h. loovemment servant had been delayed, due giving him an opportunity to make his regard is served on him) and after proceedings instituted against the to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant it may after coSr communication to this reasons to be such amount (not (4) In a case falling under sub-rule-(3) the for all purposes. period of siispension shall be treated as a period spent on duty the provisions of sub-ruleT(8)Tnd^gT be'paid'f^ch^amount f shall subject to Which he would have been eititled Sd he n^ feen suspen J a ^ T giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after h " after submitted by him in that connection within such period [whfch in no Jp 19286 days from the date on which the notice has been served] as may be specified in the noto 11. The Apex Court in a judgment reported M.Gopal Krishna NaiHn y_State of M.P_^ ; (ii) in a case of P.J.Aaarwal B.H.Marwaha y State of U.p-» and (iii) an order proposed to be V Union of India^ held that “where i AIR 1968 SC 240 '(1973) 1 SLR 194 ■(1973) 2 SLR 315 passed in FRs which causes pecuniary loss, an opportunity must be given to the employee likely to be affected. 12. In a judgment of the Apex Court reported in M.Gopal Krishna Naidu V The State of Madhya Pradesh^, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paras 5 and 7 observed as under: Under F.R. 54 where a government servant is reinstated, the authority has to consider and make a specific order (i) regarding pay and allowances payable to him for the period of his absence from duty and (ii) whether such period of absence should be treated as one spent on duty. The consideration of these questions depends on whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Government servant had been fully exonerated and in case of suspension whether it was wholly unjustified. If the authority forms such an opinion the Government servant is entitled to full pay and allowances which he would have been entitled to had the order of dismissal, removal or suspension, as the case may be, not been passed. Where the authority cannot form such an opinion the Government servant may be given such proportion of pay and allowances as the authority wp_19286_2017 13 SN,J may prescribe. In the former case the period of absence from duty has to be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes and in the latter case such period is not to be treated as period spent on duty. But the authority has the power in suitable cases to direct that such period of absence shall be treated as period spent on duty in which case the government servant would be entitled to full pay and allowances. "(5) The order as to whether a given case falls under Cl. 2 or Cl. 5 of the Fundamental Rule must depend on the examination by the authority of all the facts and circumstances of the case and his forming the opinion therefrom of two factual findings; whether the employee was fully exonerated and in case of suspension whether it was wholly unjustified. Besides, an order passed under this rule would obviously affect the government servant adversely if it is one made under CIs. 3 and 5. Consideration under this rule depending as it does on facts and circumstances in their entirety, passing an order on the basis of factual finding arrived at from such facts and circumstances and such an order resulting in pecuniary loss to the government servant must be held to be an objective rather than a subjective function. The very nature of the function implies the duty to act judicially. In such a case if an opportunity to show cause against the action, proposed is not afforded, as admittedly it was not done in the present case, the order Is liable to be struck down as invalid on the ground that it is one in breach of the principles of natural justice." (7) 13. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in a recent judgment dated 23.03.2022 reported in 2022 SCC online SC 378 in Civil Appeal No.2386/2022 in State of Rajasthan & Another vs. Manqat Lai Sidana dealing with a similar situation at paras 16 to 24 observed as under: Para 16 ‘’AIR 1968 SC page 240 8 Rule 54 with which disciplinary wp 19286Toiri4TN rproceedtT^'T' T removal and J-also dei witrabsenceTomtl on 'r orderraLe?" m7 in"rrs^ereof and" wmmBmm rr2rrr::r Government senranl at the end of the day has been felly exonerated. In the case of suspS^rwherra day that the penalty was wholly unjustified in that, on merit it is found that the empLe ds completely exonerated, he would be entitled to get full pay and dearness allowance. an as a result of the “ds^Tan^ Z^Zs7 nrtS.; h°I -s^loT* ”> as" LTet;eT::t^TsEH^ these aspects must be reflected In the order. Para 17 treated as period spent on duly. Both lo hem 0'“?,“^ “'“" '"o lad made It clear that the period of absence Is treated as duty for all purposes. However, the provisions of Rule 54(5) contemplate a situation servant. This would appear to be the scope and purport of Rule 54. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court contention of the petitioner that, the respondent, without and without considering the proceedings dated 06.04.2016 observed that, the applying his mind issued by the respondent had denied with promotion of petitioner as Assistant Inspector of Police (Civil), when he was not punished and there are no departmental enquiries pending against the petitioner denying his right of promotion and degrading his seniority, is totally illegal. I 15. This court further observed that earlier the petitioner herein has filed WPNo.12103 of 2020 before this Court seeking to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Head Constable and the same was disposed of on 23.07.2020 directing the 3'"^ respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. In pursuance of the same, the 3'?^ respondent has considered the case of the petitioner and rejected his case for promotion. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to above, this Court is of the opinion that, as per Section 54(B)(3) of Fundamental Rules, it clearly states that, if an employee is not fully exonerated, he is to be given such proportion of the pay and allowances a^ the competent authority may prescribe. Therefore, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned q proceedings in C.No.8791/A1/2020, dated 28.10.2020 issued by the 3l respondent and the proceedings vide C.No.03/OE/PR/201 H R.O.No. 199/2016, dated 06.04.2016 issued by the 2"^^ respondent are hereby set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to regularize the suspension period of the petitioner from 30.05.2010 to 20.07.2010 as ‘On Duty’ for all the purposes including the arrears of pay and allowances, increments and promotion etc., in terms of Fundamental Rule 54(B)(3) and pass appropriate 10 orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of^’ this order. No costs. 18. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : 18-10-2024 Gvl