THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO W.P.No.3316 of 2011 ORDER: ( PER GM,J) This writ petition is filed questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 05.08.2010 in O.A.No.3287 of 2009 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. First respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. It is his case that while he was working as Junior Assistant in A.S. Pet Mandal, Nellore, he was implicated in a murder case which occurred on 18.03.2001 and on account of the same, he was suspended on 17.04.2001 by the proceedings of the second petitioner. Challenging the suspension order, he filed O.A.No.1869 of 2002 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide orders dated 13.02.2002 suspended the suspension order and in pursuance of the orders of the Tribunal, the second petitioner issued orders revoking the suspension on 24.05.2002 but did not issue reinstatement orders. However, the petitioners issued proceedings dated 15.07.2002, posting the applicant as Junior Assistant in the office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore and he joined duty on 31.07.2002. While the matter stood thus, the District and Sessions Judge, Nellore who tried the murder case in S.C.No.144 of 2002 found the applicant guilty and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him for imprisonment. Thereafter, he preferred Crl.A.Nos. 109 and 412 of 2004 before this Court and the same were allowed on 02.01.2006 by a common judgment. Meanwhile, he retired from service on 31.12.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is his contention that as he was acquitted in the criminal case, the entire period of suspension from 17.04.2001 to 31.07.2002 is liable to be treated as on duty and, therefore, he is entitled for consequential benefits. But, the petitioners issued proceedings dated 16.03.2007 stating that he is not entitled for back wages and the period of suspension cannot be treated as on duty since he was involved in a criminal case. It is his case that his entire pension arrears were paid on 02.01.2009 and gratuity was paid on 10.12.2008 though he retired from service on 31.12.2003. Therefore, he is entitled for interest on these amounts. It is his further case that while he was working as Village Munsiff, he was appointed as Junior Assistant and on 28.02.1984, he was ousted from service for want of vacancy. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before this Court and this Court by interim order dated 11.04.1984 directed his reinstatement into service with effect from 06.05.1984, as such, there is a gap of two months five days. This period was treated by the petitioners as non qualifying service and they did not sanction pension for the said period even though he was subsequently reinstated into service. Hence, the said period has to be treated as qualifying service. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed their counter stating that under the relevant pension regulation, if an employee is exonerated of all the charges, the period under suspension shall be counted as qualifying service and this is applicable where the charges were framed by the Government for departmental action, but not for personal criminal case. Further, due to policy of the Government, the applicant was ousted from service on 28.02.1984 but subsequently he was given posting as per the directions of this Court. The policy of the Government cannot be questioned in this regard. As such, treatment of two months five days as non qualifying service is correct and not illegal. Only the service period of the applicant is considered for pension and the same was submitted to the Accountant General vide letter dated 24.06.2008. The delay in sending the pension proposals is due to involvement of the applicant in the criminal case and there is no inordinate delay on their part as claimed by the applicant. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners contended that the entire period of suspension from 17.04.2001 to 31.07.2002 cannot be treated as on duty since the applicant was involved in a criminal case. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent/applicant that even though the applicant was implicated in a murder case, as the said case ended in his acquittal, he is entitled to all the benefits as prayed for by him. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The Tribunal while disposing of the O.A observed that no departmental proceedings were initiated against the applicant. Moreover, the criminal case is unconnected with the discharge of official duties of the applicant. The reason for keeping him under suspension is his involvement in the criminal case. As the criminal case ended in acquittal, the period of suspension from 17.04.2001 to 31.07.2002 has to be treated as on duty and the applicant is entitled for the benefits. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the first respondent/applicant was involved in a murder case. The District and Sessions Judge, Nellore found him guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him for imprisonment. Thereafter, he preferred Crl. A. Nos. 109 and 412 of 2004 before this Court and the same were allowed. Admittedly, no departmental proceedings have been initiated against him and as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the criminal case is unconnected with the discharge of official duties. Further, as held by the Tribunal, the period from 01.03.1984 to 06.05.1984 has to be treated as qualifying service for pension in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in a writ petition filed by the applicant. The applicant is also entitled to interest on the retirement benefits as per rules from the date of his acquittal in the criminal appeal i.e., 02.01.2006 till the amount is paid. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED,J N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Dt.21.02.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO W.P.No.3316 of 2011 Dt. 21.02.2011