Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 29.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010421612018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 19429/2018 Between: 1. THOTA SAHADEVUDU,, S/O. NIREEKSHANA RAO, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. SUB-ENGINEER (O), C/O. NO. LANKA BHASKARA RAOS HOUSE, BHAVANIPURAM PLOTS, ARUMBAKA VILLAGE AND POST, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION OF AP LTD, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, BESIDE POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, ITI ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 520 008. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, APCPDCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, BESIDE POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, ITI ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 520 008. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER O, APCPDCL, BAPATLA OPERATION CIRCLE, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. CAUSE TITLE IN RESPECT OF RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 IS AMENDED/REPLACED, AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 2 VS,J W.P.No.19429 of 2018 22.06.2026 VIDE IA.NO.1 OF 2025 IN WP.NO.19429 OF 2018 ...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 to to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) declaring the action of the respondents in general and 3rd respondent in particular in not treating petitioners period of suspension i.e., from 30-06-2011 till 28-09-2011 as on duty, and also ii) the action of the respondents in not paying salary (arrears of salary) for his suspension period, and further iii) the action of the respondents in not paying pay scale and allowances as per his entitlement and denying annual increments and others since 2010 till date and also denying the benefit of Pay Revision Commission (PRC) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, non- application of mind, colorable exercise of powers, misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance, opposed to doctrine of legitimate expectation and doctrine of promissory estopel besides violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and iv) consequently, direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 30-06-2011 till 28-09-2011 as on duty and also direct the respondents to pay salaries/arrears of salary to said period of suspension and further direct the respondents to pay arrears of pay scale and allowances from 2010 till date by re-fixing his pay scale and allowances by adding annual increments and others as per his entitlement in the light of Pay Revision Commission (PRC) recommendations and further direct the respondents to clear all the above said arrears within no time @18 per cent interest per annum and also direct the respondents to pay exemplary cost and also costs of these proceedings besides imposing damages, and pass IA 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 direct the 2nd respondent to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner from 30-06-2011 till 28-09-2011 as on duty and also direct the respondents to pay salaries/arrears of salary to said period of suspension and further direct the respondents to pay arrears of pay scale and allowances from 2010 till date by re-fixing his pay scale and allowances by adding annual increments and 3 VS,J W.P.No.19429 of 2018 others as per his entitlement in the light of Pay Revision Commission (PRC) recommendations by considering his representation dt.20-04-2015 and pass IA NO: 2 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 vacate the order granted in W.P.No.19429 of 2018 dated 11-07-2018 and 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 petitioner to amend the cause title of the respondents 1 to 3, shown at para-4, to that of cause title shown at para-5 and also direct the registry to carry out the changes in the cause titles of main writ petition as well as in all other Interlocutory Application/s, if any, to this effect and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.19429 of 2018 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 order, orders or directions particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) declaring the action of the respondents in general and 3rd respondent in particular in not treating petitioners period of suspension i.e., from 30-06- 2011 till 28-09-2011 as on duty, and also ii) the action of the respondents in not paying salary (arrears of salary) for his suspension period, and further iii) the action of the respondents in not paying pay scale and allowances as per his entitlement and denying annual increments and others since 2010 till date and also denying the benefit of Pay Revision Commission (PRC) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, non-application of mind, colorable exercise of powers, misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance, opposed to doctrine of legitimate expectation and doctrine of promissory estopel besides violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and iv) consequently, direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 30-06-2011 till 28-09-2011 as on duty and also direct the respondents to pay salaries/arrears of salary to said period of suspension and further direct the respondents to pay arrears of pay scale and allowances from 2010 till date by re-fixing his pay scale and allowances by adding annual increments and others as per his entitlement in the light of Pay Revision Commission (PRC) recommendations and further direct the respondents to clear all the above said arrears within no time @18 per cent interest per annum and also direct the respondents to pay 5 VS,J W.P.No.19429 of 2018 exemplary cost and also costs of these proceedings besides imposing damages, and pass” 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Engineer (Operation) on 19.09.2006 and his services were regularized with effect from 03.10.2008. While the things stood thus, a case got registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.26/2011, dated 01.03.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of Saluru town police station , Vizianagaram district. He was arrested on 04.03.2011 and was granted bail on 23.05.2011. The petitioner was placed under suspension from 30.06.2011 till 28.09.2011. The suspension of the petitioner was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.No.23974 of 2011 which was allowed by this Court on 26.08.2011 by observing as under: “In the instant case, the petitioner, no doubt, was arrested on 04.03.2011 and was in judicial custody till 24.03.2011. The fact, however, remains that by the time the petitioner was placed under suspension, the charge sheet was already filed. The intention in placing of an employee under suspension, whether in the course of disciplinary proceedings or on the basis of involvement in a crime, is to ensure that he does not tamper with the evidence or interfere with the enquiry. Once the enquiry in a departmental proceedings or the investigation in a criminal case as the case may be, is concluded, the necessity to keep the employee under suspension ceases to exist. This continuance of employee under suspension in such cases would cause loss to the organization, 6 VS,J W.P.No.19429 of 2018 inasmuch as substantial amount of subsistence allowance has to be paid without extracting any work. At any rate, the crime alleged against the petitioner is totally unconcerned with the official duties. Left to themselves, the respondents did not initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside…” 3. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 28.09.2011. However, as the petitioner was not paid annual increments since 2010, without there being any disciplinary proceedings, he submitted a representation dated 20.04.2015 to the 2nd respondent ventilating his grievance. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering the suspension period as on duty and in not paying salary as per his eligibility, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the contentions of the petitioner and further stated that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 26.08.2011, the petitioner was reinstated into service and was posted as Sub-Engineer, Cherukupalli, Guntur district. As per the instructions of the Chief General Manager, HRD, the 3rd respondent’s office requested the Divisional Engineer, Operation, Bapatla to submit information regarding arrears to be paid to the petitioner from 2011-2014; in turn, the Divisional Engineer, Operation, 7 VS,J W.P.No.19429 of 2018 Bapatla sought legal opinion as per which, the petitioner is entitled only for reinstatement and not for arrears/increments. It is further stated that the revised pay scales for 2014 and 2018 have been given to the petitioner and that the annual increments are withheld as the criminal case filed against the petitioner is still pending adjudication. It is further stated that petitioner’s falls under extra-ordinary leave on private affairs and dies-non, as per which suspension period does not count for increment, unless it is regularized as duty. As the said period is not considered as on duty, the petitioner is not entitled for payment of arrears in the subsequent increments as requested by the petitioner. Hence requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Mr. Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Perused the entire material available on record. It can be seen from the material available on record that while the petitioner was working as Sub-Engineer in Tsunduru Operation circle, Guntur district, the petitioner’s wife committed suicide at Saluru of Vizianagaram district on 01.03.2011; basing on a suicide note, Saluru Police Station registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.26 of 2011 and arrested the petitioner on 04.03.2011, later, he was released on bail by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Saluru 25.03.2011. As the petitioner 8 VS,J W.P.No.19429 of 2018 was in judicial custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, the respondent authorities, vide proceedings dated 30.06.2011 suspended the petitioner. It is to be noted that by the time the petitioner was placed under suspension i.e., on 30.06.2011, the Police have already filed a charge sheet after duly conducting an enquiry. 7. The suspension proceedings dated 30.06.2011 were challenged before this Court in W.P.No.23974 of 2011, which was set- aside vide orders dated 26.08.2011. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 28.09.2011. Thereafter, as the petitioner was not paid arrears and increments for the period 28.09.2011 to March, 2014, he submitted a representation dated 20.04.2015 to the 2nd respondent ventilating his grievance, but, till date no orders have been passed. 8. It can be observed that the main aim of placing an employee under suspension, on the basis of involvement in a crime is to ensure that the employee does not tamper with the evidence or interfere with the enquiry. In the present case, as the Police have already completed the enquiry into the matter and filed a charge sheet as on the date of placing the petitioner under suspension i.e., by 30.06.2011, the question of tampering of any evidence by the petitioner would not arise. Furthermore, the alleged crime against the petitioner is totally unconcerned with the 9 VS,J W.P.No.19429 of 2018 official duties. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo dated 24.07.2024 enclosing a copy of the judgment passed by the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Bobbili in Sessions Case No.166 of 2011, dated 19.12.2018, whereby, the petitioner herein was acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. When such employee is acquitted of the charges in the criminal trial, it is generally for the competent authority to form its opinion whether the suspension of the employee was wholly justified or unjustified. Even otherwise it can be observed that until and unless the suspension period is regularized by the respondents duly taking into consideration the acquittal order passed in S.C.No.166 of 2011, the subsequent arrears of salary and allowances from 2010 cannot be released by the respondents. In the case on hand, though the petitioner submitted a representation on 20.04.2015 to the 2nd respondent requesting to consider his period of suspension as on duty and to pay salaries/arrears of salary for the period of suspension and to pay arrears of pay scale and allowances from 2010, the same is still pending for consideration. 9. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner on 20.04.2015 for regularization of the suspension period of the petitioner i.e. 10 VS,J W.P.No.19429 of 2018 from 30.06.2011 till 28.09.2011, duly taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Bobbili in Sessions Case No.166 of 2011, dated 19.12.2018. The said process shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 29.06.2026 Gss Whether the order is : Speaking Yes Reportable No