HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No : 8589 of 2010 O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 09.12.2008 in O.A.No. 5174 of 2008 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The father of the petitioner was kept under suspension from 16.05.1994 to 26.09.1998 on the ground that he was trapped by the ACB Officials on 27.04.1994 for accepting bribe of Rs.500/- for preparation of bills. However, as per the proceedings in G.O.Rt.No. 931 (PR) Department, dated 22.06.1998, he was reinstated into service and was permitted to retire on 31.07.1998. During the course of departmental enquiry, the petitioner’s father was found guilty of the mis-conduct. Therefore, the Government imposed the punishment of 100% cut in pension. Aggrieved by the same, the father of the petitioner filed O.A.No. 2373 of 2000 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the said O.A. was disposed of on 26.02.2002 with a direction to re-examine the case. The matter was re-examined and the order of the Government was confirmed on 01.08.2003. subsequently, the father of the petitioner was acquitted by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, as per the judgment dated 28.10.2003 in C.C.No. 33 of 2000. Immediately thereafter, the father of the petitioner submitted representations to the respondents on 11.11.2003 and 14.08.2004 requesting for regulating the period of suspension from 16.05.1994 to 26.07.1998 as ‘on duty’ for all purposes and pay allowances with all incremental and other benefits, but no orders have been passed thereon. It appears that no order was passed with regard to the treatment of suspension period either at the time of reinstatement of the applicant from suspension or at the time of passing of final orders imposing a punishment of 100% cut in pension. Therefore, again the father of the petitioner approached the Tribunal and filed O.A.No. 5174 of 2004 seeking a direction to the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 16.05.19094 to 26.07.1998 as ‘on duty’ for all purposes and to pay all retiral benefits and the said O.A. was dismissed. Now, the grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is when his father was acquitted in ACB case, the period of suspension should have been treated as spent ‘on duty’. Hence, he filed the present Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development. A perusal of Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules makes it clear that when a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be; and whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. Therefore, it is for the disciplinary authority to decide whether the period of suspension of the father of the petitioner can be treated as the period ‘on duty’ or not. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to pass appropriate order on the representations dated 11.11.2003 and 14.08.2004 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ----------------------------- (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 20th April 2010 ksld 1. ..... REGISTRAR 2. // TRUE COPY // 3. SECTION OFFICER To 4. 1) 2 CD copies 5. Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} 3rd August 2009 ksld