THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.26922 of 2005 (Dated : 14-09-2011) Between: U.V.Narayana Rao S/o late Ramanujaiah ….Petitioner A n d The Divisional Security Commissioner and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.26922 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner-U.V.Narayana Rao was appointed as a Constable in Railway Protection Force on 30th August 1967. He was promoted as an Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1994. He figured as one of the accused in a report filed by his daughter-in-law for the offence under Section 498-A IPC read with 109 IPC. He was tried and convicted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC in C.C.No.222 of 1994, on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bapatla. 2. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.629 of 1999 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. While so, his daughter-in-law informed of his conviction to the railway administration. Thereupon, the railway administration kept him under suspension on 24-5-2002 and initiated departmental proceedings for not informing of his conviction. The railway administration appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against him. During the course of enquiry, three witnesses were examined. The petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He did not choose to avail the services of his friend to assist him in the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty for the charges levelled against him and accordingly, submitted a report. The Disciplinary Authority-Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Hyderabad Division, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, considered the enquiry report and accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and imposed punishment of removal from service, by an order dated 25-10-2002. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway/SC. His appeal ended in dismissal on 28-01-2003. 3. In the meanwhile, the criminal appeal filed by him before VI Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, Fast Track Court, assailing his conviction and sentences for the offence under Section 498-A IPC came to be allowed on 4-6-2003. Consequently, he came to be acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. He preferred a revision before the Chief Security Commissioner/SC assailing his punishment of dismissal from service in the departmental enquiry. The Revisional Authority keeping in view of the acquittal recorded by the appellate Court, modified the punishment of dismissal to postponement of two increments with cumulative effect while treating the interregnum period from the date of dismissal from service to reinstatement as Leave Without Pay (LWP), by order dated 10-12- 2003. The petitioner filed writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and treating the period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement as Leave Without Pay; as arbitrary and illegal. 4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 19-12-2005. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter. It is stated that the petitioner failed to inform of his conviction to the railway administration, which amounts to misconduct. It is also stated that in case of departmental proceedings ending with minor penalty, the period of suspension is to be treated as duty, but not the interregnum period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioner reported for duty on 27-5-2004 after his reinstatement and he retired from service on 31-5-2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner was paid all retirement benefits as per rules. As the interregnum period was treated as Leave Without Pay by the respondents, he was not entitled to the benefits of bonus and encashment of holiday wages. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for South Central Railway appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner ended with minor penalty, the period of suspension should be treated as duty period. A further submission has been made that treating the period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement as Leave Without Pay is contrary to R.P.F. Rules, 1987 and Conduct Rules and therefore, the said period is required to be treated as duty period. 7. Per contra; learned Standing Counsel for South Central Railway appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner failed to inform of his conviction to the railway administration, thereby, the petitioner contravened Rules 146 (4), 161 (i), 162.1, 162.2, 162.3 and 162.4 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 and Rule No.13 of the Railway (Administration) Conduct Rules, 1966. A further submission has been made that the order of dismissal came to be modified to withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, consequent on his acquittal in the appeal and therefore, the period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement cannot be treated as duty period. 8. It is a matter of record that the petitioner failed to report before the railway administration of his conviction for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. It is his daughter-in-law, who informed the railway administration and thereupon, disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he sent intimation to the railway administration by post. The plea advanced by him has not been substantiated in the departmental enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority refused to accept his plea and recorded a specific finding that he failed to report of his conviction to the railway administration. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as upheld by the Appellate Authority does not warrant interference. The punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner came to be modified keeping in view the acquittal of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A IPC recorded by the appellate Court. The charge levelled against the petitioner is that he failed to inform of his conviction to the railway administration. The charge has been established in the departmental enquiry. His acquittal by the appellate Court for the offence under Section 498-A IPC has been taken into consideration by the Revisional Authority for modification of the punishment of removal from service to that of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. 9. It is not in dispute that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner ultimately ended in minor penalty. This fact has been admitted by the respondents in the counter. Indeed a categorical admission has been made in para (4) of the grounds stated in the counter, which reads as hereunder:- “ ……………As per rule when the major charge sheet was issued and ultimately minor punishment is imposed, the period of suspension to be treated as on duty, but not the intervening period from the date of dismissal to reinstatement”. 10. The Circular issued by the Railway Administration also speaks of the same rule position. It is trite to refer the relevant portion of the text of the circular issued by the railway administration and it reads as hereunder:- “ Attention is invited to Railway Board’s letter No.E (D&A) B1.RC6-43 dated 23.4.83 circulated under this office letter of even number dated 18.5.1983, wherein the circumstances under which a Competent Authority can place a Railway Employee under suspension have been detailed. In terms of Board’s letter No.F(E) III.78/SPN/1/1 dated 23.10.79 circulated under serial Circular No.172/79, the cases of suspension are required to be reviewed periodically to assess the need to continue the employee under suspension. Drawing attention to the guidelines for placing Government servants under suspension, Department of Personnel and Training vide their letter dated 3.12.1985, received under Board’s letter dated 21.3.1986, circulated vide Serial Circular No.55/86, clarifies that where the departmental proceedings initiated against a suspended employee for imposition of major penalty, finally ends in imposition of minor penalty, the suspension should be reckoned as fully unjustified and the period treated as duty and wages paid”. 11. Since the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner ultimately ended in minor penalty, the suspension period, i.e., from 24-5-2002 to 25-10-2002 is required to be treated as duty period. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to treat the suspension period of the petitioner, i.e., from 24-5-2002 to 25-10-2002 as on duty period and pay him the wages for the said period. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.14-09-2011 *RAR