THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 19635 of 1999 Dated: 09.06.2010 Between: S.Saraiah, Warangal District. … Petitioner And The Divisional Security Commissioner, Secunderabad and another … Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PTITION No. 19635 of 1999 O R D E R : Petitioner herein is an employee of the Railway Protection Force. By order dated 29.12.1998 passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement from service holding that the serious misconduct and negligence towards duty charged against him was established. The 1st respondent also directed that the period of suspension shall be treated as suspension. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent herein. The said appeal was disposed of by order dated 25.05.1999 modifying the penalty of compulsory retirement to that of withholding the increment for a period of three year with cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order under which the penalty of compulsory retirement from service was modified to a minor penalty of withholding increment for a period of three years. However, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while modifying the penalty, the 2nd respondent ought to have clarified that the period of suspension shall be treated as on duty. To substantiate the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in P.Purnachandra Rao v. Senior Security Commissioner, R.P.F.[1] and the memo of the Government of India Department of Personnel and Training dated 03.12.1985, providing that where disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalty were initiated against an employee, but the disciplinary authority ultimately imposed a minor penalty, the period of suspension shall be treated as on duty. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the 2nd respondent for clarification as sought by him. If any such representation is made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be considered by the 2nd respondent and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 09.06.2010 KLP [1] 2003(3) ALT 747