APHC010798122018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 050 0 TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION No: 38553 OF 2018 Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Inspector General of Police Rayalaseerna Region, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. (Now the said post was discontinued) 4. The Superintendent of Police, Y.S.R. District at Kadapa. ...PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS IN O.A.No.7427/2014 AND Sri S.S.Gangaiah, S/o Nagaiah, aged about 57 years, Occ; working as ASI 1447 at Chinachowk Police Station, Kadapa Town Y.S.R District, Native of Akulagaripalli Village, Girijana Colony, Mydukur, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District. ...RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT IN O.A.No.7427/2014 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 an appropriate Writ Order or direction, more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI and call for the records relating to one and connected with OANo.7427/2014, dated 17-11-2016 Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to order dated 17-11-2016 in OANo.7427/2014 by holding contrary to law. lA No: 1 OF 2018 on the tile of the quash or set aside the as erroneous and 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 suspend the operation of the orders dated O.A.No.7427/2014 17-11-2016 made in on the file of the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pending disposal of the Writ Petition. lA No: 2 OF 2024 Between: Sri S.S.Gangaiah, S/o Nagaiah, aged about 57 1447 at Chinachowk Police Station, Kadapa Town Y.S.R Akulagaripalli Village, Girijana Colony, Mydukur, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT years, Occ; working as ASi District, Native of AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, District. 3. The Inspector General of Police Rayalaseerna Region, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. (Now the said post was discontinued) 4. The Superintendent of Police, Y.S.R. District at Kadapa. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim order in I.A. No. 1 of 2018 in W.P.No.38553 of 2018 dated 26.10.2018, dismiss the Writ Petition. Mangalagiri, Guntur Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. AISHWARYA NAGULA The Court made the following order: APHC010798122018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3527] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 38553/2018 Between; 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE GENERAL OF POLICE RAYALASEERNA REGION, LAKDIKAPOOL, HYDERABAD. (NOW THE SAID POST WAS DISCONTINUED) 4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Y.S.R. KADAPA. 3.THE INSPECTOR DISTRICT AT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.S S GANGAlAH, S/o Nagaiah, aged about 57 years, Occ. working as ASI 1447 at Chinachowk Police Station, Kadapa Town Y.S. R.District of Akulagaripalli Village Girijana Colony, Mydukur, Kadapa, native Y.S.R. District. ...RESPONDENT 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 toto issue an appropriate Writ. Order or direction, more particularly 2 m one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to and connected with O.A.No.7427/2014, dated 17-11-2016 on the tile of the Honble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the order dated 17-11-2016 in O.A.No.7427/2014 by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 suspend the operation of the orders dated 17-11-2016 made in O.A.No.7427/2014 on the file of the Honble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pending disposal of the writ petition and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to grant leave to file the stay vacate/counter affidavit in W.P. No. 38553 of 2018 in the interest of justice and may be pleased to pass lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim order in I.A. No. 1 of2018inW.P. No. 38553 of 2018 dated 26-10.2018, dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitloner(S): 1.GPFOR SERVICES I (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1.AISHWARYANAGULA 3 The Court made the following Order; (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. This writ petition was filed questioning the order in O.A.No.7427 of 2014 on the file of erstwhile A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 2. 17.11.2016. The respondent herein filed the above said O.A. questioning the respondent therein/ 4^^ petitioner herein in 3. th proceedings of the 4 C.NO.178/PR/2001 dated 13.11.2002 and the orders of the 1®‘ respondent petitioner herein in Memo No.10567/Ser-ll/A1/2013, dated 22.05.2013 rejecting the applicant’s request for regularization of suspension period from 29.09.2001 to 17.04.2002 and out of employment period from 17.11.2002 to 20.03.2007. St therein/ 1 As per the brief facts, the respondent herein worked as Heard Constable at Mydukur II Town Police Station of Kadapa District and the Crime No.84 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC was registered against him and two others. A common charge sheet was filed before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class vide C.C.No.389 of 2001. Consequently, the respondent was placed under suspension from 29.09.2001 to 17.04.2002 because of his alleged involvement in the above said criminal case. Ultimately, the trial court vide its judgment dated 4. 4 21.10.2002 convicted the respondent herein/ applicant therein for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. Against the said judgment, the 1®‘ respondent therein filed the above said Criminal Appeal No.279 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Sessions 5. Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and the same was allowed on 10.03.2003. While the said criminal appeal was pending, the 4‘^ petitioner herein by order dated 13.11.2002 dismissed the respondent herein from service on account of his conviction in C.C.No.389 of 2001. Consequent upon allowing of the above said appeal and in pursuance of the directions of the erstwhile Tribunal in O.A.No.4441 of 2004, the respondent herein was reinstated into service in the year 2007. Then the respondent herein/ applicant therein filed number of representations before the 4**" petitioner herein and other petitioners herein requesting them to regularize the suspension and out of employment period as duty with all consequential benefits. In view of the pending of the above said criminal case, the 6. departmental enquiry was held against the respondent herein and the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 05.06.2008 holding that charge was not proved. But the 4‘^ petitioner herein vide Memo dated 11.07.2008 disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and after considering the explanation of the respondent herein/ applicant therein/ delinquent, imposed the punishment of PPI (Postponement of Increment) for three years with effect on future increments vide proceedings dated 29.10.2008. 5 Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein/ applicant therein/ delinquent filed revision before the 1®^ petitioner herein and the 1^' petitioner considering the material available on record modified the punishment of PPI for three years with effect on future increments and pension already awarded to him to the effect of PPI for one year with effect on future increments and pension vide proceedings dated 11.11.2009. Even aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein/ applicant therein/ delinquent made representation to petitioner herein dated 09.09.2010 to set aside the modified punishment of PPI for one year. While so, the Criminal Appeal No. 1458 of 2005 filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2012. Consequently, the respondent herein/ applicant therein/ the delinquent made another representation to the 1®‘ petitioner herein and the rejected vide proceedings dated 22.05.2013 to treat the out of employment period as the duty period. Aggrieved by the same as stated supra, the respondent herein approached the erstwhile Tribunal vide the above said O.A. which was allowed as stated above with the operative portion as under. 7. St the 1 same was 8. “15. Point No.4: In view of the findings on points 1 to 3, the O.A., is allowed in part and Memo No.10567/Ser.ll/A1/2013 dated 22.05.2013 issued by the 1®* respondent is set aside with a direction to the respondents to regularize the suspension period from 29.09.2001 to 17.04.2002 as leave to which he is eligible and in the absence of leave as EOL and count it for the purpose of seniority, promotion, etc. The respondents are further directed to treat the out of employment period from 17.11.2002 to 20.03.2007 as duty with all consequential benefits of pay, allowances, seniority, promotion etc. Orders in compliance of the above directions shall be issued within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of his order. No costs.” The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners submits that the G.O.Ms.No.220 G.A. (S.W), Department dated 03.06.1995was not taken into considerationby the learned Tribunal though was mentioned in their counter aff.davit before the said Tribunal and as such the total relief was granted to the applicant therein/ respondent herein. According to the said G.O. there shall be “no pay for no work” and as the respondent herein was not in service from 29.09.2001 to 16.04.2002 and from 17.11.2002 to 20.03.2007 on account of suspension and out of employment respectively and as such he is not entitled for any back wages. He further submits that as the proceedings of the disciplinary authority as it was confirmed in hierarchy by the 1®* petitioner dated 11.11.2009, it shall be treated as that the respondent has not been relieved from the charge framed the disciplinary proceedings though he was acquitted in a criminal case. He also points out that the proceedings of the 1®* petitioner/ revisional authority dated 11.11.2009 was not under challenge before any appropriate forum. 9. same in On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the Tribunal well considered the case on merits and granted relief in view of the acquittal of the respondent herein in a criminal case which confirmed by the High Court. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that he was not paid subsistence allowance during the suspension period and out of employment period. 10. was 7 the above said facts and circumstances, upon 11. Having regard to consideration of the submissions made by both the learned counsels and record, it is to be seen with regard petitioner herein dated 11.11.2009 which has upon perusal of the material available on to the proceedings of the 1 become final with respect to the imposition of punishment to the respondent misconduct that the punishment of PPI for one year with effect on the orders of the Tribunal, herein for future increments and pension. Though as per suspension period and the out of employment period were treated as on duty but in view of the above said G O., it shali not be counted for the purpose of be counted as per the orders of the orders of the 1®' petitioner dated paying any salary and the said period can Tribunal by also implementing the 11.11.2009 simultaneously. If subsistence allowance was not paid during the shall be considered by the authorities concerned as relevant period, the same per the rules. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs As a sequel. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any 12. shall stand Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECrf^FFICER closed. //TRUE COPY// To High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Aishwarya Nagula, Advocate [OPUC] 1. Two CCS to GP for Services-1 2. One CC to Ms. 3. Two CD Copies. gi HIGH COURT DATED;01/07/2025 ORDER WP No. 38553 OF 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS