APHC010632872012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 30138/2012 Between: 1. V. LOKNATHA CHOWDARY, S/O VENKATESH CHOWDARY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC NON TECHNICAL WORK INSPECTOR ANANTAPUR URBAN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HIMAYATHNAGAR URDUGALLY, HYDERABAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD HIMAYATHNAGAR, URDUGALLY, HYDERABAD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD ANATAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD ANANTAPUR DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY 2. . The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- Petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 04.08.2012, whereby the 1st respondent has revoked the suspension of the petitioner and further held period of suspension could be treated as not on duty. It was also stated that he would not entitled for any monetary benefit for the said period on the principle of no work, no pay. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.08.2001 and the suspension was revoked on 22.02.2012. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Non Technical Work Inspector in the respondent corporation and was implicated in Crime No. 95 of 2001 on the file of Kalyandurg Police Station. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2008, vide the order dated 29.01.2010 by the Learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur. The petitioner submitted a representation along with a copy of judgment on 02.03.2010 and sought for reinstatement together with service benefits. The 3rd respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report and held that charges leveled against the petitioner were not proved. However, the petitioner was warned not to involve himself in such activities in future. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case and was also acquitted in the criminal appeal. However, the respondents have denied the petitioner the continuity of 4 service and have resorted to treating the petitioner as not on duty for almost 11 years. 4. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.03.2011 to the respondent seeking appropriate orders of reinstatement, as the Enquiry Officer also found that the charges were baseless. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.33313 of 2011 and this Court granted an interim order, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in pursuance of the orders of the District Collector. The respondents vide order dated 16.02.2012, reinstated the petitioner by revoking the suspension with immediate effect. The petitioner thereafter joined duty in the office of Project Director, Kadapa on 23.02.2012. The petitioner subsequently submitted a representation dated 17.03.2012 to the 1st respondent seeking appropriate orders of treating the period of suspension from 06.08.2001 to 22.02.2012 as on duty and to pay all the benefits as per the provisions of Fundamental Rules 54 B (3) and B (4), the representation was not considered by the respondents. The petitioner subsequently filed W.P.11551 of 2012, it was disposed on 24.04.2012, directing the respondents to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) months. Thereafter, the impugned proceedings dated 04.08.2012 was passed rejecting the case of the petitioner. It was held that the period of suspension from 02.08.2001 to 22.02.2012 would be treated as not on duty. 5. The respondents have filed a counter and have stated that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.95 of 2001 and was initially convicted for the 5 offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced for imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default further period of two (2) months of simple imprisonment. The petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the appellate Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2010. It is also submitted that the respondents have soon after receiving the order of acquittal, have placed the same before the competent authorities for passing appropriate orders. It is also submitted that the petitioner instead of awaiting the orders had approached this Court by filing various writ petitions. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for treating the petitioner as on duty for the period from 16.08.2001 to 22.02.2012 is concerned, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners as the petitioner was not on duty on his own accord and on account of his involvement in a private criminal case. It is submitted that the proceedings are passed in accordance with the A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules and also in terms of the fundamental rules. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Perused the record. 8. The short point for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled for considering his case for treating the period of suspension from 16.08.2001 to 22.02.2012 as on duty. The petitioner was placed under suspension for his alleged involvement in Crime No.95 of 2001. The petitioner was arrested on 27.08.2001. The petitioner obtained anticipatory bail from this Court. In the 6 counter, the respondents have stated that the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail from this Court. However, in the same paragraph, it is stated that the petitioner was detained under custody on criminal charges for period exceeding 48 hours. When the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, there would be no question of the petitioner being under judicial custody as stated in the counter in the same crime. 9. That apart, Rule 53 of Fundamental Rules deals with the case of suspension of a government servant and the entitlement of the government servant during the suspension. Rule 54 Deals with the cases where the government servant has been dismissed, removed or compulsory retired and is reinstated as a result of appeal or review. Rule 54 (3) and (4) would be relevant for the present case. When the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension proceeding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case shall be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in the matter of M.Mahipal Reddy Vs. The State of Telangana 1 whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana considered a similar and identical case and held that the period of suspension once revoked, the service of the employee are to be treated as on duty for all purposes. Insofar as the stand of the respondent is concerned that the petitioner himself was not on duty on account of his involvement in the 1 2024 Latest Caselaw 337 Tel 7 criminal case is concerned, the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case and pending proceedings before the trial Court would not have impacted the petitioner's role and responsibility as the employee of the respondent corporation. It was for the respondent corporation to have utilized the service of the petitioner in the manner appropriate. Having kept the petitioner idle during the trial and the appeal stage, the respondents are not justified in denying the continuity of service for the petitioner and denying treating the period of suspension as not on duty. 11. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings dated 04.08.2012, deserve to be set aside and there shall be a direction to the respondents to extend the continuity of service for the petitioner and treat the petitioner as on duty for notional purposes during the period of suspension from 16.08.2001 to 22.02.2012. 12. With these observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.25.02.2026 SR