THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21808 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Telugu Lecturer in Taluk Junior College, Tenali, a private aided educational institution. He was arrested on 19.04.1998 in relation to a criminal case and was in jail till 06.05.1998. Taking that fact into account, the Secretary and Correspondent of the College, respondent No.4 herein, placed the petitioner under suspension through proceedings, dated 01.08.1998, with effect from 19.04.1998. The petitioner filed W.P.No.2891 of 1999. The order impugned therein was suspended on 16.02.1999 and he was reinstated into service on 22.09.1999. The writ petition was ultimately allowed on 08.09.2008 and the order of suspension was set aside as being opposed to Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner faced trial in S.C.No.727 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali and he was acquitted on 08.02.2000. The manner in which the period of suspension must be treated, has to be decided by the Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, respondent No.3 herein. Through order, dated 11.08.2010, respondent No.3 took the view that the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner for the period between 19.04.1998 and 21.02.1999 shall be treated as adequate and that he shall not be entitled for any further relief. The petitioner challenges the same. It is urged that the Fundamental Rule 54-B upon which respondent No.3 placed reliance, is not applicable to the services of the Teachers in private aided educational institutions. It is further pleaded that once the order of suspension was set aside by this Court, there is no basis for denial of relief to the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. The petitioner no doubt was placed under suspension in view of his having been arrested in relation to a criminal case. However, the order of suspension was set aside, since it was found to be in contravention of Section 79 of the Act. The respondents did not file any appeal against the order in W.P.No.2891 of 1999. Further, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated by any of the respondents. Ultimately, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge in the criminal case. Once the order of suspension was set aside by this Court and no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, there cannot be any justification for respondent No.3 in refusing to treat the period of suspension as on duty. Though reliance was placed upon the Fundamental Rule 54-B; in the counter-affidavit, it is clearly stated that the said Rule does not apply to the services of the employees in private aided educational institutions. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that respondent No.3 shall treat the period during which the petitioner was under suspension as on duty and release the arrears of salary after deducting the amount of subsistence allowance paid to him. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.08.2011 kdl