THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.595 of 2011 ORDER(Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the legality and validity of the order, dated 11.08.2010 passed in O.A.No.5294 of 2010 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent, while working as Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Srikakulam, involved in demanding and accepting bribe amount and thereby, ACB filed C.C.No.1 of 2005 against him before the Special Court for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. He was placed under suspension from 18.03.2005 till 31.12.2005, on which date, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Ultimately, the first respondent was acquitted in the said case. After his acquittal, though he made a representation, dated 28.01.2010, to the petitioners seeking to release his full pensionary benefits, including D.C.R.G, by treating the period of suspension from 20.03.2005 to 31.12.2005 as on duty, no action has been taken thereon. Hence, he filed the above said O.A. before the Tribunal, which in turn, allowed the same directing the petitioners to release all his pensionary benefits, including D.C.R.G., and also directed them to treat the suspension period of the first respondent from 20.03.2005 to 31.12.2005 as on duty and fix his pay by applying the Revised Pay Scales and release the same with arrears and the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from that date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. The first respondent filed counter stating that the petitioners placed him under suspension 1½ years after the trap conducted by the ACB on the accused officers. He stated that he was acquitted in C.C.No.1 of 2005 by the trial Court holding that he was not present at the time of raid along with the other accused officers and that the money was recovered from an unknown person and against the said acquittal, ACB filed an appeal before this Court with condone delay petition, which is now pending. He also stated that the conduct of an employee has to be taken into consideration for regularizing the period of suspension after his acquittal in a criminal case. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A. by the order impugned and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 5. Learned Government Pleader contended that as the appeal against acquittal is pending for admission before this Court, the period of suspension of the second respondent cannot be regularized. 6. Learned counsel for the first respondent contended as the first respondent was acquitted after full-fledged trial, under F.R.54, the period of absence from duty will be treated as on duty and therefore, he seeks to regularize his suspension period. 7. Admittedly, the first respondent was not arrested in the criminal case filed by the ACB, but he was placed under suspension on 18.03.2005. During the suspension period, he retired from service on 31.12.2005, on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, he was acquitted in C.C.No.1 of 2005 by the trial Court vide judgment, dated 30.09.2009, which reveals his non-involvement in the trap conducted by the ACB. The appeal filed against the said acquittal is stated to be pending before this Court. That apart, no departmental proceedings have been initiated against the first respondent. Since the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, the period of absence from duty will be treated as on duty under F.R.54, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent. F.R.54 reads as under: "F.R.54 When the suspension of a Government servant is held to have been unjustified or not wholly justified; or When a Government servant who had been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated; the revising or appellate authority may grant to him fort the period of his absence from duty (a) if he is honorably acquitted, the full pay to which he would have been entitled if he had not been dismissed, revoked or suspended and, by an order to be separately recorded, any allowance of which he was in receipt prior to his dismissal, removal or suspension; or (6) if otherwise such proportion of such pay and allowances as the revising or appellate authority may prescribe. In a case falling under clause (a) the period of absence from duty will be treated as a period spent on duty. In a case falling under clause (b), it will not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the revising or appellate authority so direct." In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the services of the first respondent should be regularized during the suspension period i.e, 20.03.2005 to 31.12.2005. 8. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is modified, directing the petitioners to regularize the services of the first respondent for the period of suspension i.e., 20.03.2005 to 31.12.2005 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from today and communicate the same to the first respondent. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:31.01.2011 Note:Issue CC within one week. sj