APHC010093642021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 5557/2021 Between: 1. Y V S N NARSINGA RAO, S/O LATE Y.KONDALA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. MANAGER, GOVT. GENERAL HOSPITAL, KAKINADA, E.G. DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, STATE OF A.P. VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declare the action of the respondents in treating the suspension period from 20-7-1999 to 13-12-2000 vide impugned G.O.Rt.No.465 HM andFW Dept. dated 20-9-2019 as highly illegal, arbitrary, discrimination and also contrary to the FR-54 (b) and consequentially this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned G.O.Rt.No.465 HM andFW Dept. dated 20-9-2019 by declaring the that the petitioner is entitled for regularization the above suspension period as on duty with all consequential benefits and may pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 suspend the impugned G.O.Rt.No.465 HM andFW Dept. dated 20- 9-2019 by directing the respondents to re-consider the petitioner claim to treat the suspension period from 20-7-1999 to 13-12-2000 as on duty under FR- 54(b) and may pass 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 Pleased to grant leave to the respondent to file Counter Affidavit and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R TAGORE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri M.R.Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services – I, appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is against the proceedings of the 1st respondent refusing to treat the suspension period from 20.07.1999 to 13.12.2000 as on duty vide G.O.Rt.No.465, HM & FW Department, dated 20.09.2019, contrary to FR-54(b). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as FWW(Male)/MPHA(M) in 1984 on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. Vide 3 G.O.Rt.No.1153, HM & FW Department, dated 07.07.1999, the petitioner was suspended alleging that he was involved in certain financial irregularities in the purchase of medicines. In pursuance thereof, a Charge Memo dated 23.10.1999 was issued and called for explanation. The petitioner submitted an explanation. After submission of the explanation, pending further orders on the said Charge Memo, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide G.O.Rt.No.1494, dated 06.12.2000. Following the findings of the enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 18.01.2009 was issued, and the petitioner once again submitted his explanation dated 17.03.2009. After the submission of the said explanation dated 17.03.2009, a punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.1577, dated 08.12.2009, was imposed. Later, on a review application being filed by the petitioner, the said penalty was set aside vide G.O.Rt.No.955, dated 27.07.2010. However, no further orders were passed regarding the suspension period, either treating it as on duty or not on duty. The petitioner contends that after the said proceedings dated 27.07.2010, the petitioner was exonerated from the criminal prosecution, by the special court for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad vide judgment dated 23.04.2014 in C.C.No.15 of 2008. Thereafter, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 08.08.2016, had set aside the penalty imposed against the petitioner. However, even in the said G.O., the respondents have not mentioned anything about suspension period. Thus, the petitioner has approached the 1st respondent vide representation dated 30.05.2017, seeking 4 the regularization of the period of suspension as on duty. The Government vide proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.280 dated 06.07.2018 rejected the application treating the period of suspension as not on duty. The petitioner made further representation on 23.01.2019 to the Government. The same was rejected vide G.O.Rt.No.465, HM & FW Department, dated 20.09.2019, observing that there are no new grounds put forth by the petitioner in support of his claim for waiver of the penalty further observed that the petitioner does not deserve any consideration. Challenging the same, the instant writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the respondents are under an obligation to treat the suspension period as on duty, relies on the following judgments: i) judgment of this Court in the case of A.V.Vinod Kumar Vs. Executive Committee of the Central Warehousing Corporation , New Delhi and Another 1, ii) judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yellinedi Sagareswara Rao Vs. S.K.Jawahar Reddy2. 5. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization of service. The competent authority has treated the petitioner's suspension period as not on duty. Further reliance is placed on FR 54-B(7) that the period of suspension shall not be treated as on duty unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so 1 2007 (5) ALD 445 2 2014 Supreme (SC) 1239 5 treated for any specified purpose. Unless there is such an observation at this stage, the relief of the petitioner cannot be entertained. 6. Considered the rival submissions. 7. As seen from the impugned proceedings, the observation of the 1st respondent is that the petitioner had not made out any new case for waiver of the penalty. As the earlier request of the petitioner was rejected vide G.O.Rt.No.280 dated 06.07.2018, the review application filed by the petitioner was rejected. The contention of the petitioner is that after acquittal of criminal proceedings, he has sought regularization of the suspension period as on duty. His further contention is that after acquittal of criminal case, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 08.08.2016 dropping further action against the petitioner. Having regard to the same, and in the light of the fact that the penalty imposed by the 1st respondent was also set aside vide G.O.Rt.No.955 dated 27.07.2010,there is no justification for the respondents not to treat the suspension period as on duty. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yellinedi Sagareswara Rao Vs. S.K.Jawahar Reddy, dealing with the similar situation has directed the respondents to treat the suspension period as on duty for all purposes including for the purpose of pay and allowance, while observing that after conclusion of the proceedings, no justification for not treating the suspension period as on duty. In the facts of the present case, the Government, as long back as in 2010 had observed that there is no legality for both the proceedings of disciplinary and criminal, thus observed that conduct 6 of second enquiry by appointing another enquiry officer is not permissible. In the light of the same, when the 1st respondent himself has observed that there is no legality for continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents ought to have considered and regularized the period of suspension from 20.07.1999 to 13.12.2000. IN the absence of any disciplinary proceedings or in the contrary the same being set aside by the department, there is no justification to treat the petitioner as not on duty during the suspension period. 8. In this regard, placing reliance on the judgment of the erstwhile composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of A.V.Vinod Kumar Vs. Executive Committee of the Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi and Another, wherein it was observed that the disciplinary authority has the discretion/power to treat the period of suspension as on duty while imposing minor punishment. In the present case, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were dropped consequently all further proceedings were set aside including the punishment imposed. Thus, there is no justification for not treating the suspension period as on duty. I am of the firm view that the disciplinary authority failed to exercise the discretion vested in it properly, particularly in the absence of any finding by the enquiry officer that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. . 9. Having regard to the same, the order impugned is set aside. The respondents are directed to regularize the suspension period as on duty for grant of all consequential benefits. The respondents further directed to treat the suspension period as on duty and release for the purpose of all pay and 7 allowances, thus computed, shall be paid within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order. 10. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:03.03.2026 ANI 8 207 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.5557 of 2021 Date:03.03.2026 ANI