IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 11435 of 1999 Between: Chandalla Deva Raj S/o. Late Veranna 132 Kv Substation, Yerragada, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Transmission Co-op of A.P. Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hyd (TRANSCO)(bifurcated part of AP state Electricity Board) Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 Transmission Co-op.,, Rep by its Director, A.P. Hyd (TRANSCO)(bifurcated part of AP state Electricity B Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent in regularising my service during the suspension period from 10.3.93 to 3.7.97 even after the clean acquittal Judgement rendered by the Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam in CC No. 04/94 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and to consequently direct the respondents to immediately regularise my service during the suspension period from 10.3.93 to 3.7.97 and to release all the attendant benefits such as increments, promotions, Salary during the suspension period and to immediately process my pension papers and to pass such other and further orders as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JPK} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.No.11435 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition with the following prayer: “That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the inaction of the respondents in regularizing the services of the petitioner during the suspension period from 10-03-1993 to 03-07-1997 even after the clean acquittal judgment rendered by the Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.04 of 1994, as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently, direct the respondents to regularize his service during the said period and to release all the attendant benefits such as increments, promotions, salary during the said period and to process his pension papers etc.” According to the petitioner, he joined the A.P. Electricity Board during the year 1964 as a ‘Line Man’ and thereafter, by virtue of promotions, he became an Engineer and during the year 1993, he was working as ‘Additional Assistant Engineer’ at Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam. It appears there was a trap by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) and a case in Crime No.4/RC-WLR/93 of Waltair Range, Visakhapatnam, was registered. In the light of the registration of the said crime, the petitioner was kept under suspension on 10-03-1993. Thereafter, the officials of ACB, after completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.4 of 1994, before the Special Court for ACB cases at Visakhapatnam and the said Judge vide his Judgment dated 28-12-1998, acquitted the petitioner under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The said suspension was continued till 03-07-1997 and during the pendency of the case itself, he was reinstated into service. Subsequent to the acquittal, the petitioner gave representations to the respondent-authorities to treat the period of suspension i.e. from 10-03-1993 to 03-07-1997 as in service and for payment of all consequential benefits. But as there was no response from the respondent-authorities, he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board. Having considered the submissions, it is clear that the non- payment of salary etc. to the petitioner is solely on the ground that he faced trial in C.C.No.4 of 1994 and preferred the appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Court, Visakhapatnam. But the learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the judgment in Crl.A.1033 of 1999, whereby this Court dismissed the said appeal on 30-12-1999. When once there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner and when the petitioner was acquitted by both the trial Court as well as the High Court, in my considered view, treating the said period i.e. from 10-03-1993 to 03- 07-1997 as suspension and not taking the said period for regularization of service, is bad in law. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are hereby directed to take the said period of suspension i.e. from 10-03-1993 to 03-07-1997 for all attendant benefits such as regularization of service, increments, promotions and salary etc. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 25th June 2009 kvr