APHC010182282019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 7851/2019 Between: 1. T.ASWNANI KUMAR REDDY,, S/O. LATE VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC- RTD.MANAGER, ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK R/O. H.NO.26-13-113, B.V.NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA BANK, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD QUARTERS AT KADAPA, MARIAPURAM, OPP.BISHOP HOUSE, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. CAUSE TITLE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AMENDED AS PER C.O. DT 15.4.2026 VIDE IA NO.1/2025 IN WP NO.7851/2019 2. THE PERSONNEL MANAGER, THE ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK, PERSONNEL 86 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, HEAD OFFICE AT KADAPA, MARIAPURAM, OPP. BISHOP HOUSE, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA 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 topleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of 2 VS,J W.P.No.7851 of 2019 writ of Mandamus declaring the illegal action of the respondents in not paying eligible salary during suspension period due from 14.7.2008 to 14.2.2011 and other benefits to the petitioner i.e. 1)Salary arrears during the suspension period (2 '/2 years) Rs.8,02,533/- 2) Balance Gratuity payable for the suspension period Rs.1,00,791/- 3) PL Encashment for 77 days (suspension period) Rs.2,43,850/- 4) Balance commutation amount payable Rs.64,745/- 5) Balance pension payable from 19.18 to 1.6.19 Rs.2,104/- per month Rs.18,936/- total amount Rs.12,30,855/- as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and in violation of Staff Service Regulations 2010 and consequently direct the respondents to pay eligible salary along with consequential benefits due from 14.7.2008 to 14.2.2011 and other all benefits IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner salary due from 14.7.2008 to 14.02.2011 during suspension period along with all consequential benefits forthwith by considering the representation of the petitioner latest on 1.6.2019 pending disposal of the writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 permit the petitioner herein to amend the cause title of the 1st respondent" Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank" as "Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank" and allow the same in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MEDIKONDA PRANAY VENKAT CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V UMA DEVI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.7851 of 2019 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “…to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the illegal action of the respondents in not paying eligible salary during suspension period due from 14.7.2008 to 14.2.2011 and other benefits to the petitioner i.e. 1)Salary arrears during the suspension period (2 '/2 years) Rs.8,02,533/- 2) Balance Gratuity payable for the suspension period Rs.1,00,791/- 3) EL Encashment for 77 days (suspension period) Rs.2,43,850/- 4) Balance commutation amount payable Rs.64,745/- 5) Balance pension payable from 19.18 to 1.6.19 Rs.2,104/- per month Rs.18,936/- total amount Rs.12,30,855/- as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and in violation of Staff Service Regulations 2010 and consequently direct the respondents to pay eligible salary along with consequential benefits due from 14.7.2008 to 14.2.2011 and other all benefits…” 2. The petitioner joined the 1st respondent organization as manager on 19.03.1986 and has been working ever since, without there being any complaint from the concerned authorities. 3. While the petitioner was working at Gowravaram branch, Kavali mandal, SPSR Nellore district, based on a false complaint made by one Guthi Rama Rao in the year 2008, alleging that the petitioner being a public servant, demanded gratification of Rs.10,000/- for sanction and 4 VS,J W.P.No.7851 of 2019 release of loan sought by the said Guthi Rama Rao, the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.02 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal Special judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court below, after conducting an elaborate trial, acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dated 16.12.2015. In the meanwhile, when the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner, he was placed on suspension by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 15.07.2008, which was revoked thereafter on 05.02.2011 and the petitioner was reinstated into service. 4. Pursuant to his reinstatement vide proceedings dated 05.02.2011 of the 1st respondent, the petitioner rejoined the service and continued to work in the respondent organization till his retirement on 31.07.2018. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the period between 15.07.2008 and 05.02.2011, the petitioner was paid only subsistence allowance though he is entitled for full salary along with all benefits as per bank circular bearing No.206-2010-BC-STF, dated 21.09.2010. Ventilating his grievance, the petitioner submitted several representations to the 1st respondent, the latest being 01.06.2019 to take sympathetic view and to extend him the benefits as per the circular dated 21.09.2010. As no action 5 VS,J W.P.No.7851 of 2019 has been initiated by the 1st respondent pursuant to the representations submitted by the petitioner, by treating the suspension period as on duty and by paying all the monetary benefits as per his entitlement, the present writ petition is filed. 5. In spite of several adjournments, the respondents have not chosen to file any counter affidavit. 6. Heard Sri. M.P.V. Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Uma Devi, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Perused the entire material available on record. The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 15.07.2008 on the ground that a charge sheet was filed against him, the same was subsequently revoked vide proceedings dated 05.02.2011; thus, the period between 15.07.2008 and 05.02.2011 shall be treated as on duty as per circular dated 21.09.2010. For better appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of the circular bearing No.206-2010-BC-STF, dated 21.09.2010 is extracted hereunder: “30. Officer or employee arrested for debt or on a criminal charge,- An officer or employee who is arrested for debt or on a criminal charge or detained in pursuance of any process of law for the time being in force, may, if so directed by the Competent Authority, be treated as 6 VS,J W.P.No.7851 of 2019 being or having been under suspension from the date of his arrest, and / or detention, as the case may be, upto such date or during such period as the Competent Authority may direct: Provided that in respect of the period in regard to which he is so treated, he shall be paid subsistence allowance as specified in regulation 46. Any payment made to an officer or employee under sub-regulation (1) shall be subject to adjustment of his pay and allowances which shall be made according to the circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision as to whether such period is to be accounted for as a period of duty or leave: Provided that full pay and allowances shall be admissible only if the officer or employee,- is treated as on duty during such period; and is acquitted of all charges or satisfied the Competent Authority, in case of his release from detention being set aside by the Competent Court, that he had not been guilty of improper conduct resulting in his detention.” 8. As discussed hereinabove, the petitioner was reinstated vide proceedings dated 05.02.2011 bearing Ref.No.20/STF/A/1038/TO/2011. The relevant portion of the said proceedings are extracted hereunder: “…The Competent Authority has further directed us to inform you that the period of suspension will be treated as on duty or otherwise after disposal of the case pending with CBI court.” 7 VS,J W.P.No.7851 of 2019 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted by the Court below vide its judgment dated 16.12.2015 in C.C.No.02 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam. In such circumstances, when the respondent authorities themselves have admitted in the proceedings dated 05.02.2011 that the period of suspension of the petitioner would be treated as on duty pursuant to the result of the case filed against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits for which he is entitled as per circular dated 21.09.2010. 10. As the representation dated 01.06.2019 submitted by the petitioner is still pending for consideration before the 1st respondent, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner dated 01.06.2019, in accordance with proviso 30 of the circular bearing No.206-2010-BC-STF, dated 21.09.2010 and also the reinstatement proceedings dated 05.02.2011, keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 8 VS,J W.P.No.7851 of 2019 Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated:21.09.2026 Gss