THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 22909 of 2010 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order in Lr. No.SKU/T.Estt./EE.III/2008, dated 7.7.2008 whereunder and whereby the petitioner’s request for regularization of entire period of suspension from 16.07.2005 as on duty and for sanction of annual increments and notional promotion and to pay full salary for the period from 16.07.1992 to 10.07.2005, was rejected. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner, while working as Associate Professor in the first respondent university, was kept under suspension on 16.07.1992 for his alleged involvement in a case registered as crime no.32 of 1992 of Mudigubba police station for the offences under Sections 324, 326, 357 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, wherein the police laid charge sheet after completion of investigation. However, the competent criminal court acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated 04.02.2003, which has become final. Thereafter, the first respondent, after obtaining clarification from the Superintendent of Police, issued orders dated 02.07.2005 withdrawing suspension of the petitioner, and the petitioner joined duty on 10.07.2005. Thereafter, the request made by the petitioner for regularization of entire period of suspension from 16.07.2005 as on duty and for sanction of annual increments and notional promotion and to pay full salary for the period from 16.07.1992 to 10.07.2005, was rejected vide impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on a decision in M.Paul Anahony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited,[1] wherein it is held thus: (para 34). “There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, "the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom". The findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by police officers and panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings to stand.” Basing on the above decision, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the question of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner does not arise in view of the fact that no disciplinary enquiry is initiated by the Executive Council of the first respondent even as on today and the petitioner is entitled for all the benefits. The above judgment has no application to the facts of the present case because in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case having regard to the fact that the appellant therein was undergoing agony since 1995 despite having been acquitted by the criminal court. In this case, the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court vide judgment dated 04.02.2003 in Sessions Case No.213 of 1999 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadiri. No appeal has been filed against the said judgment. The impugned order was passed in the year 2008. The petitioner made representation to the authorities on 29.09.2007. In pursuance of the said representation, the impugned order is said to have been passed. 5. It is not in dispute before this Court that the Executive Council of the first respondent university is the disciplinary authority to take appropriate decision in the case of misconduct on the part of the employee of the University. Under Section 19 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act No.4 of 1991, the Executive Council shall be the executive authority of the university and shall have the power to suspend, remove or dismiss teachers of the university subject to such ordinances as may be made in that behalf. As seen from the records, no departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the suspension order passed by the first respondent. As seen from the impugned order, the Executive Council has not applied its mind independently. It seems the first respondent referred the matter regarding regularization of period of suspension of the petitioner as ‘on duty’ and for sanction of annual increments and notional promotions and to pay full salary, to the Department of Education of the State Government, who said to have advised the first respondent to reject his case, and accordingly, the petitioner’s request was rejected by the respondents vide impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the second respondent is not the authority to take appropriate decision. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Executive Council of the first respondent university is directed to take appropriate decision basing on the material available on record and as per the rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the petitioner with regard to request of the petitioner for regularization of entire period of suspension from 16.07.2005 as on duty and for sanction of annual increments and notional promotion and to pay full salary for the period from 16.07.1992 to 10.07.2005. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 09.06.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 22909 OF 2010 09.06.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 22909 OF 2010 09.06.2011 Between: Y.Ramachandra Reddy …Petitioner And Sri Krishna Devaraya University & another …Respondents [1] AIR 1999 SC 1416