IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 7592 of 2007 Between: D. Ramulu S/o. Butchaiah R/o. MIG-24, Housing Board Colony, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairma & Managing Director, A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent Engineer (Operation) A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Ranga Reddy (South) at Hyderabad. 3 The Divisional Engineer (Operation) A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Vikarabad , Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the orders by the 2nd Respondent herein in his Memo No. SC/OP/RRC(S)/Adm./C1/F.635/D.No. 172/06 dt. 5-6-2006 as conﬁrmed by the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent Vide Order dt. 17-2-2007 in Memo No. CGM/OP/RR Zone/Hyderabad/Adm./D.No.1998/07 as arbitrary illegal, and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner from 30-4-2002 to 20-1-2006 as on duty and to re-ﬁx the pay scale of he petitioner and ﬁnalise the retirement beneﬁts of the petitioner forthwith, and pass such other or further orders as are necessary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner retired from service as Upper Division Clerk of the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited. While the petitioner was in service, a case was registered against him under Sections 498-A and 302, read with Section 34 I.P.C. and he was arrested on 30.04.2002. Based on the same, the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide orders, dated 20.05.2002. The case was tried as S.C.No.19 of 2005 by the Court of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner was acquitted in the S.C., vide judgment, dated 23.09.2005. Thereafter, he was reinstated into service on 19.01.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not extended the diﬀerence of salary after being reinstated. The claim of the petitioner for the diﬀerence of salary was examined by the second respondent and he issued a Memo, dated 05.06.2006. It was observed that since the arrest of the petitioner and the consequential suspension was not connected with the oﬃcial duties, he is not entitled for the diﬀerence of salary. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The respondents ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit opposing the claim of the petitioner by placing reliance upon Clause (6) of Regulation 57 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’). Heard Sri J.Kanakaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The suspension of the petitioner was necessitated, on account of his having been arrested in connection with a criminal case. After he was acquitted in the criminal case, he was reinstated into service, may be with some delay. Regulation 57 of the Regulations prescribes the procedure to be followed whenever an employee, who has been dismissed, removed, compulsory retired or suspended, is reinstated. Clause (6) thereof reads as under: “Where an employee is prosecuted in respect of a criminal oﬀence or other matter whether arising out of his oﬃcial duties or not or imprisoned for debt or is detained under any law providing for preventive detention, and he is detained in custody for a period longer than forty eight hours, he shall be deemed to be under suspension and shall be entitled only to subsistence grant under Regulation 56 till the termination of the departmental proceedings against him. On the termination of such proceedings, if the matter arose from out of oﬃcial duties, unless the employee is dismissed from service, his pay and allowance shall be adjusted according to the provisions of the above Regulation. In all other cases, if the employee is permitted to rejoin duty, he shall not be entitled to anything more than what he would have received if he had been granted the leave admissible to him for the period of his absence from duty since his detention, the amount of subsistence grant already drawn by him being adjusted against his pay and allowance.” From a perusal of this Clause, it becomes evident that a clear distinction is made between the cases where the prosecution of an employee is in relation to an oﬀence arising out of oﬃcial duties on the one hand, and other factors, on the other. In the former category of cases, an employee is entitled to be paid the diﬀerence of salary on being reinstated. In the latter category of cases, he would not be entitled for such a benefit. In the instant case, the prosecution of the petitioner was not for any oﬀence, arising out of oﬃcial duties. On the other hand, it was under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. consequent on the death of his daughter-in-law in suspicious circumstances. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the diﬀerence of salary for the period during which he was under suspension. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:06.08.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}