THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16834 of 2001 Date:30th September, 2011 Between: D.Soleman Raj S/o.D.Deva Das ... Petitioner a n d 1. The Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, Krishna District & Anr. … Respondents *** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16834 of 2001 ORDER: Petitioner D.Soleman Raj was appointed as Railway Protection Force Constable on 17.04.1983. He came to be arrested on 01.12.1999 in Crime No.42 fo 1999 of Krishnalanka Crime Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District, registered for the offences under Sections 382 and 411 IPC. He failed to inform his arrest to his superior officers. The Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka P.S., after due investigation in Crime No.42 of 1999, laid charge-sheet against the petitioner and another in the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took the charge- sheet on file as C.C.No.481 of 2000 and on full-fledged trail, the petitioner came to be acquitted for the offences under Sections 382 and 411 IPC, by judgment, dated 30.10.2000. Departmental proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner for his desertion of duty point in the yard on 29.11.1999. An enquiry officer came to be appointed by the disciplinary authority. Before the enquiry officer, 8 witnesses were examined and 14 documents were exhibited to substantiate the charge levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry officer submitted a report finding the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. The disciplinary authority i.e., the Assistant Security Commissioner (North), Railway Protection Force, SCR, Vijayawada, Krishna District-2nd respondent accepted the enquiry officer’s report and imposed punishment of withholding increment for a period of three years and treating the suspension period from 01.12.1999 to 24.11.2000 as suspension only. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, SCR, Vijayawada, Krishna District-1st respondent. The appellate authority, on reappraisal of the material brought on record, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the primary authority and accordingly, rejected the appeal under Proc.No.B/XP.227/153/2000/01, dated 13.3.2001. Assailing the order of the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 14.08.2001. 3. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of revision against the order impugned in the writ petition and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the charges leveled against the petitioner have been proved during the departmental enquiry and the disciplinary authority accepted the report of the enquiry officer and imposed punishment and the said punishment has been confirmed by the appellate authority. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner challenged the very punishment itself, but the petitioner is confining to the relief of seeking mandamus to the respondents to treat the suspension period as duty period in view of the circular issued by the respondents-Railway. 6. It is not in dispute that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner ultimately ended in minor penalty. This fact has not been denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. The circular issued by the Railway Administration also supports the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 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.” Since the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner ultimately ended in minor penalty, the suspension period, i.e., from 1.12.1999 to 24.11.2000 is required to be treated as duty period. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to treat the suspension period of the petitioner i.e., from 1.12.1999 to 24.11.2000 as on duty period and pay him the wages for the said period. No costs. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:30th September, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16834 of 2001 Date:30th September, 2011