IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.7323, 6188, 9970 AND 20053 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION No.7323 OF 2000 Between: Surya Prakash son of Late Rama Rao Tradesman b, Defence Research and Development Laboratory Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri Director General , DRDO, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, 2. The Director, Defence Research and Development Laboratory Chandrayangutta , Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Certiorari calling for records relating to the Judgment in OA.No.947/99 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Dt. 22/02/2000 and quash the same and allow the prayer in the OA.No. 947/99 with all consequential beneifts and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S. LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SRI I. KOTI REDDY S.C. FOR CENTRAL GOVT. The Court made the following : WRIT PETITION No.6188 OF 2000 Between: D. Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Koteswara Rao, Technician B, Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Director , Defence Research & Development Laboratory, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ , order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the judgment in OA598/99 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dt.22.2.2000 and quash the same and allow the prayer in the OA.598/99 with all consequential benefits and be pleased to pass such other and further order or orders as may be deemed fit. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S. LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. : SRI A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) WRIT PETITION No.9970 OF 2000 Between: Ch.Bhupal Goud Alias Biksham S/o.Ayodhya Laboratory Kahchan Bagh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Director Defence Research and Development Laboratory Chandraynagutta Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the judgement in O.A.No.1387/99 in the file of the Central Admn Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 22-2-2000 and quash the same and allow the prayer in the O.A.1387/99 with all consequential benefits and be pleased to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S. LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SRI I. KOTI REDDY, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. WRIT PETITION No.20053 OF 2000 Between: M. GOPAL S/O.M VENKAIAH TECHNICIAN-B, DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY, KANCHANBAGH, HYDERABAD. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 THE SCIENTIFIC ADIVSOR TO RAKSHA MANTRI & DIRECTOR GENERAL, DRDO, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2 THE DIRECTOR DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY, KANCHAN BAGH, HYDERABAD. 3 THE REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the judgement in OA 1247/99 dated 10.04.2000 and also further consequential Proceedings No. DRDL/1112/RAD dated 20.07.2000 issued for the first respondent and quash the same and allow the OA No. 1247/99 with all consequential benefits including directing the respondents to promote the petitioner on par with his junior with all consequential benefits and be pleased to pass such other and further order or orders as may be deemed fit. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S. LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SRI I. KOTI REDDY, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioners Surya Prakash, D. Rajendra Prasad, Ch. Bhupal Goud alias Biksham and M. Gopal respectively, who are the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos.947, 598, 1387 and 1247 of 1999 respectively. 2. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed O.A. No.947 of 1999 by order dated 22-02-2000 and following that order, the other O.A. Nos.1387, 598 and 1247 of 1999 were dismissed on the same day. 3. Since the subject matter of all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. 4. Since O.A. Nos.1387, 598 and 1247 of 1999 are dismissed following the detailed order in O.A. No.947 of 1999 dated 22-02-2000, the relevant facts in W.P. No.7323 of 2000, which is filed against the order in O.A. No.947 of 1999, are taken for disposal of all these writ petitions. 5. After conducting an enquiry, the petitioner, Surya Prakash, was removed from service vide order dated 09-06-1978 and the same was challenged by him before this Court in W.P. No.8671 of 1981 and this Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the removal order. Aggrieved of the same, the respondents carried the matter to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court while allowing the S.L.P., remanded the matter to this Court to dispose of the same on merits. It is stated that earlier in W.P. No.8671 of 1981, removal order was questioned on the ground that the order passed by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court held that respondent No.2, the Director, Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Kanchan Bagh, is the competent authority to take disciplinary action. Consequently, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, this Court transferred the O.A. to the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal renumbering it as T.A. No.24 of 1991 disposed of the same by order dated 29-09-1993, paragraph No.6 of which reads as under: “6. We feel that a serious view would not have been taken in regard to the charge No.1 in the absence of the Charge No.2. So, it is a matter for remitting it to the disciplinary authority. (The applicant preferred an appeal to the Scientific Advisor. But the same stood abated in view of this TA as envisaged under section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985). Hence, the order dated 9-6-1978 in regard to the punishment of removal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority i.e. the respondent herein for considering afresh in regard to the punishment with reference to the Charge No.1 of the Charge Memo dt.19-10-1977. As it is a case where there is a time gap of more than 12 years between the date of order of punishment and the date of disposal of this T.A., and as it is mainly in view of the stand taken by the applicant that the respondent ie., the Director, is not competent to pass the order of punishment of removal/dismissal, which was ultimately negatived by the Supreme Court and as the applicant was paid the subsistence allowance in view of the interim order till the Supreme Court disposed of the matter in 1990, and as the respondent is not responsible for the said delay, we feel that the applicant is not entitled to any subsistence allowance till the date or to any pay till he is going to be reinstated in pursuance of the order that is going to be passed by the respondent by way of punishment which will naturally be less than the removal, in view of our observations in this order. The respondent has to dispose of the matter in regard to the punishment in regard to the Charge No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of this order. If the same is not disposed of within one month from the date of receipt of this order, the applicant will be entitled to salary from the date on which the period of one month referred to herein expires. The period upto the date of suspension counts for increments and seniority. The entire period from the date of suspension till reinstatement also counts for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits. The respondent should not recover the subsistence allowance already paid in pursuance of the interim order.” 6. Pursuant to the above order, respondent No.2 passed the order dated 29-12-1993 reinstating the petitioner into service by imposing the penalty of censure. Further, in terms of the order in T.A. No.24 of 1991 dated 29-09-1993, the Tribunal disposed of O.A. No. 1460 of 1998, vide judgment dated 29-12-1998, filed by the petitioner seeking to grant consequential benefits such as seniority, increments and other service benefits on awarding the penalty of censure in accordance with Rules. Pursuant to this order of the Tribunal, respondent No.2 passed the order bearing No.DRDL/1216/228/C.CELL dated 08-03-1999 regarding punishment with reference to Charge No.1 imposing the punishment of censure and while imposing the punishment of censure, respondent No.2 held that as per the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the earlier O.A. filed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to subsistence allowance, but, however, if any subsistence allowance is paid, the same shall not be recovered and the period from the date of suspension till reinstatement counts for calculation of pensionary benefits only and that period will not count for any other service benefits. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed O.A. No.947 of 1999 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 22-02-2000, against which, this writ petition is filed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no doubt, earlier, while setting aside the order of removal by order dated 29- 09-1993 in T.A. No.24 of 1993, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for consideration of the matter afresh in regard to punishment with reference to Charge No.1 directing it to impose lesser punishment than removal from service and accordingly the disciplinary authority while reinstating the petitioner into service imposed punishment of censure only. 8. He also submitted that under Fundamental Rule 54-B(1), the disciplinary authority is bound to consider, while reinstating the petitioner into service, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any allowance to be paid by the respondents authority during the period of suspension and whether the period of suspension shall be treated as the period spent on duty or not and that no specific order has been passed under Fundamental Rule 54-B(1). 9. The learned counsel further submitted that under Fundamental Rule 54-B(1) read with the instructions issued by the Central Government, it was clarified that if a minor penalty imposed holding that suspension is wholly unjustified, then the employee concerned should be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order and these guidelines are also not followed by the disciplinary authority. 10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Central Government submits that the order dated 08-03-1999 passed by the disciplinary authority is in accordance with the Fundamental Rules and the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal, while setting aside the order of removal, remanded the matter only to impose lesser punishment than the removal from service and also specifically held that the petitioner is not entitled to any subsistence allowance till the date of disposal of the O.A. or to any pay till he is reinstated pursuant to that order. It is specifically held that the punishment other than removal alone has to be imposed. The Tribunal further held that the period up to the date of suspension counts for increments and seniority, but the entire period from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement counts for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits. Thus, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any pay, increments and seniority for the suspension period except the subsistence allowance, which was already paid is not liable to be recovered. 11. It is stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case, as per the order of the Tribunal in T.A. No.24 of 1991 dated 29-09-1993, the disciplinary authority - respondent No.2 reinstated the petitioner into service imposing minor punishment of censure and thereafter passed the order dated 08-03-1999 holding that the period of suspension will not count for any other service benefits i.e. for the increments and the seniority, therefore the same is legal and valid. 12. It is also stated that under Fundamental Rule 54-A(1), where the order of removal is set aside by the Court and the Government servant is reinstated without holding any further inquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularized and the Government servant shall be paid pay and allowances in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) or (3) subject to the directions, if any, of the Court. 13. It is further stated that there are specific directions in the case of the petitioner in the earlier O.A. holding that he is not entitled to any increments and seniority during the period of suspension and the said order of the Tribunal is not questioned by him (petitioner), as such, he is not entitled to any service benefits for the period of suspension. 14. We have considered the rival contentions. 15. We are of the opinion that the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in T.A. No.24 of 1991 dated 29-09-1993 is specific, unambiguous and the petitioner has accepted that order with regard to finding that he is not entitled to any increments and seniority for the period of suspension except the period of suspension liable to be counted for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits alone. Therefore, in our opinion, the order dated 08-03-1999 passed by respondent No.2 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any service benefits during the period of suspension is in accordance with the Fundamental Rule 54-A(1) and the order of the Tribunal in the earlier O.As. filed by the petitioners. 16. As a matter of fact, this Court, while dealing with a similar subject matter in W.P. No.6626 of 2000, holding that the Tribunal considered all the contentions of the respective parties, rightly held that similarly situated petitioners are not entitled to any service benefits or seniority during the period of suspension and accordingly dismissed that writ petition. 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any legal error or infirmity to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, W.P. No.7323 of 2000 is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, W.P. No.7323 of 2000 is dismissed. No order as to costs. 19. In view of the dismissal of W.P. No.7323 of 2000, the remaining writ petitions, which are filed by the similarly situated petitioners, are also liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, W.P. Nos.6188, 9970 and 20053 of 2000 are also dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 21, 2009. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J PV