HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.P.No.16597 OF 2001 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the proceedings dated 17-03-2001 issued by the respondent and quash or set aside the same by holding it as arbitrary and illegal. Heard Sri A.Rama Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Junior Pharmacist in the respondent-Company and while working as such, he was placed under suspension on 27-10-1994, on the premise that a criminal case was registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 411 IPC. The said criminal case was numbered as C.C.No.287 of 1995 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka. After his acquittal in the said case, vide judgment dated 19-02-1998, he was reinstated into service on 25.10.1998. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and after conducting regular departmental enquiry, the respondent-Company vide order 2 dated 06-07-1999 imposed the punishment, which reads as under: “I, have, therefore, decided to impose on you the punishment of “Reduction to lower stage in the time scale” as per Clause 28.1.5 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. Accordingly, I, in exercise of the powers delegated to me, hereby impose on you the punishment of reduction of your pay to the minimum of the S-4 Scale with cumulative effect for a period of 2 (two) years with immediate effect as a disciplinary measure. Consequently, your basic pay would be Rs.2245/- in the scale of Rs.2245-58-2651-65- 3106 (S-4) from the date of issue of this order and during the period of punishment. Further, a separate order will be issued on completion of the punishment period fixing your pay. Further, the period of your suspension from duty from 29.10.94 to 25.10.98 will be treated as per the proviso in Clause-31.3 of the Certified Standing Orders.” Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.01.2001 seeking to pay Local Travelling Expenses, canteen subsidy and work dress with stitching charges for the suspension period from 29-10-1994 to 25-10-1998. The respondent-Company vide order dated 17.03.2001 rejected the same. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per Clause-31.3 of the Certified Standing Orders, whenever any punishment is imposed on an employee, as per 3 Clause 28.1.5, the suspension period of the employee is to be treated as spent on duty. It is appropriate to refer Clause 31.3 of the Certified Standing Orders, which read as under: “If, on the conclusion of the inquiry or criminal proceedings, the workman has been found guilty of the charges framed against him, the Disciplinary Authority shall pass appropriate orders. Provided that when an order of dismissal is passed, the workman shall be deemed to have been absent from duty during the period of suspension and he shall not be entitled to any remuneration but the subsistence allowance already paid to him shall not be recovered. Provided also that where an order imposing censure, fine, suspension, stoppage of increment or reduction to a lower grade or post or lower stage in time scale is passed under Standing Order 28.1., the workman shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension and shall be entitled to the difference in wages, he would have received had he not been placed under suspension, and the subsistence allowance paid to him during the suspension period.” A perusal of the said clause would make it abundantly clear that whenever punishment is imposed in exercise of the powers under Standing Order 28.1, the workman shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension and shall be entitled to the difference in wages, he would have received had he not been placed under suspension. As per Clause 28.1.5 of the Certified Standing Orders, the punishment of reduction to lower stage was imposed 4 against the petitioner vide order dated 6.7.1999. The said order further states that the suspension period from 29.10.1994 to 25.10.1998 will be treated as per the proviso in Clause 31.3 of the Certified Standing Orders. When the respondent- Company itself stated that the suspension period from 29.10.1994 to 25.10.1998 will be treated as per Clause 31.3 of the Certified Standing Orders, then the petitioner would be entitled to Local Travelling Expenses, Canteen Subsidy and work dress with stitching charges. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondent-Company is directed to pay Local Travelling Expenses, Canteen Subsidy and work dress with stitching charges during the suspension period i.e., from 29.10.1994 to 25.10.1998. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI 21st August, 2018 rkk 5