1 APHC010076322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 4364/2026 Between: 1. S SUBHASHINI, W/O.V.VIDYASAGAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, R/O.D.NO.5-151/1, VENKATADRI NAGAR, SUJATHA NAGAR POST, CHINNAMUCHIDIVADA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT. 521456 3. THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI. 531001 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo no. 5122/E4/2002 dated 7.1.2026 issued by the Respondent no. 2 rejecting the request to regularize and treat suspension period ass on duty from 20.10.2021 to 9.2.2023 and to pay backwages, increments and all the other consequential benefits as per Rule 54b of THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES AND SUBSIDARY RULES having awarded minor punishments of censure by proceedings no. 15394/E-VG/2023 dated 10.1.2024 as arbitrary, illegal colorable exercise of power apart from being violated of fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Article 14, 1921 of the Constitution of India and consequently a) Set aside the memo no. 5122/E4/2002 date 7.1.2026 issued by the Respondent no.2. b) Further direct the Respondents to regularize the suspension period between 20.10.2021 to 9.2.2023 and provide all the consequential benefits such as backwages, increments and promotions, etc., and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 respondent to reconsider the representation dated 19.2.24 and 19.12.2024 in view of the order of this Hon’ble Court in the cases of A.V.Vinod Kumar vs. Executive Committee, reported in 2007(5)ALD 445 by suspending the operation of the Memo no. 5122/E4/2002 dated 7.1.2026, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition 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 nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.5122/E4/2002, dated 07.01.2026 issued by the Respondent No.2 on rejecting the representation of the petitioner for regularization for the suspension period between 20.10.2021 to 09.02.2023 having awarded minor punishment of Censure vide Proceedings No 15394/E-VG/2023, dated 10.01.2024, as contrary to Rule 54-B of Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power apart from being violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the (a) to set aside the Memo No.5122/E4/2002, dated 07.01.2026 issued by Respondent No.2 and (b) direct the respondent No.2 to regularize the period of suspension between 20.10.2021 to 09.02.2023 and pay full back wages along with increments with consequential pay revisions and pass such other orders.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, while he was working as a Superintendent in the office of the District Mines and Geology 4 Officer, Visakhapatnam, certain allegations were made against him. In pursuance of the said allegations, the respondent No.2 issued a memo dated 20.10.2021 and, on the instructions of the respondent No.1, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.10.2021. Thereafter, articles of charge were framed on 05.11.2021, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation, contending that he was merely a subordinate officer and not the competent authority to issue work orders or execute lease deeds. He further states that his superior officer, who was similarly placed, was initially placed under suspension but was subsequently reinstated on the ground that no loss had been caused. It is submitted that, pursuant to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer, by his report concluded that the petitioner had not deviated from the departmental instructions and recommended dropping of the proceedings. Notwithstanding the said findings, the petitioner was continued under prolonged suspension and was reinstated only on 09.02.2023 pending enquiry. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 10.01.2024, the respondent No.2 imposed a minor penalty of censure without assigning proper reasons and without passing any orders with regard to the treatment of the suspension period, payment of back wages, or the effect on 5 increments. It is submitted that, though he did not challenge the imposition of the minor penalty, he made representations seeking regularization of the suspension period and payment of full salary and increments, particularly in view of the finding that no loss was caused to the exchequer. In these circumstances, the petitioner contends that the continued refusal of the respondents to regularize the period of suspension is arbitrary and contrary to Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, which mandates passing of specific orders regarding pay and allowances upon reinstatement. It is further contended that, in view of the imposition of only a minor penalty of censure and the categorical findings of the enquiry officer, treating the suspension period as “not on duty” would amount to imposing a major penalty, which is impermissible in law. Hence, the action of the respondents in not regularizing the suspension period from 20.10.2021 to 09.02.2023 and in denying back wages, increments, and other consequential benefits is illegal and arbitrary. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical issue had fallen for consideration before this Court. In that context, the erstwhile composite High Court observed that once a minor punishment such as censure or warning is imposed, treating the 6 period of suspension as “not on duty” would amount to imposing a more severe punishment. It was held that censure is only a minor penalty in nature, whereas denial of “on duty” treatment for the suspension period results in serious civil consequences and partakes the character of a major punishment. 5. Following the said judgment, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 19390 of 2020, disposed of the writ petition with similar observations:- 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of A.V.Vinod Kumar v. Executive committee of the central Warehousing Corporation New Delhi and another3, it was held that Censure is a minor punishment something like a warning to be careful in future. In fact, in the Order dated 24.12.1991, it was stated that a lenient view in the matter was taken to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to improve his behaviour and to be careful in his work in future. While holding so, treating the period of suspension as 'not on duty', cannot be said to have been done in good faith and good conscience. The censure itself is a punishment of a minor nature. To treat the period of suspension as not on duty is a severe punishment, by which the petitioner is denied continuity of service for the purpose of seniority, promotion etc. Therefore, though the disciplinary authority has got power, such power, in this case, was not exercised reasonably and no reasonable person could have treated the period of suspension as not on duty while imposing the minor punishment of Censure. 8. Under those circumstances, in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that treating the period of suspension as not on duty, while imposing a punishment of censure in the disciplinary proceedings, will lead to imposing a major punishment, as such, the action of the disciplinary authority in 7 treating the period of suspension as not on duty is unreasonable and against good conscience. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.06.2019 is liable to be set aside. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decision of A.V.Vinod Kumar’s case (supra 3), this Court is of the opinion that when once the disciplinary authority has imposed a minor penalty of censure the respondents ought to have treated the suspension period as spent on duty. 11. In view of the above reasons, the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.488/C2/2014, dated 4.6.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside and directing the respondents to treat the suspension period as spent on duty and further directing the respondents concerned to release 6 annual increments due to the petitioner from 1.7.2015 to 1.7.2020 and SPP Scale-I-A on completion of 12 years service, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. In view of the foregoing, upon perusal of the material available on record and having regard to the observations made in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 07.01.2026 issued by the respondent No.2 are hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are further directed to treat the period of suspension from 20.10.2021 to 09.02.2023 as “spent on duty” and to release the consequential benefits, including back wages, increments, and all attendant benefits, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to cots. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date:23.02.2026 GK 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH 122 WRIT PETITION NO:4364 of 2026 Dated:23.02.2026 Gk