THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.8593 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus in not paying full wages from the date of suspension till the cessation of departmental disciplinary proceedings as per Regulation 6.2 (a) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations and Reg. 21.2(a) of APSRTC Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1967 (for short ‘the Regulations, 1967’) read with the directive of the Government issued in letter No.12907/vig.III/1/2009, dated 02-01- 2010 as illegal and arbitrary and to grant consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner while working as Executive Engineer in APSRTC, Nellore he was placed under suspension vide order, dated 14-03-2001 and charge sheeted basing on the report that he was apprehended by ACB authorities on 12-03-2001 on the alleged acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- from the contractor. Subsequently, his suspension order was revoked on the directions of the Government. He reported for duty and thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Subsequently, he was acquitted for the charge levelled against him. The Government of A.P. addressed a letter to the 1st respondent to drop further action and to take action in view of exoneration from the charges. So far the disciplinary proceedings pending against him have not yet been finalized. He submitted a representation to the 1st respondent to pay full wages treating the suspension period as on duty with all consequential benefits in view of clean acquittal in the criminal case and that he was retired on 31-07-2004. After considering his representation, the Deputy Secretary to Government vide letter, dated 07-08-2009 directed the 1st respondent to take immediate action and pay the dues and furnish action taken, but no action has been taken to treat the suspension period as ‘on duty’. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ petition. It is stated that as the petitioner was involved in ACB case and sent for remand, he was placed under suspension and thereafter, he was reinstated into service pending finalization of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner retired from service on 31-07-2004. During suspension period, the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance 50% of the salary for 1st six months and later increased to 75% duly obtaining the sanction from the competent authority. After his retirement, his retirement benefits were calculated treating suspension period as ‘leave due’. The competent authority is examining the matter to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner as per Reg. 21 of the Regulations, 1967. Hence, they pray to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The 3rd respondent filed separate counter affidavit stating that ACB case was registered against the petitioner and the same was ended in acquittal. After examining the matter, the 3rd respondent issued instructions to corporation to drop further action. 1st respondent issued orders treating the suspension as leave due, but the petitioner requested to treat the period of suspension as ‘on duty’. As it was already decided to treat the suspension period as ‘leave due’, question of considering his request to treat the period as ‘on duty’ does not arise. As per G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 04-01-2006, back wages to a suspended/dismissed employee cannot be paid in cases where the employee has been acquitted by the Courts of benefit of doubt. After examining the matter, 3rd respondent issued instructions to corporation to reconsider the earlier order issued and treat the period of suspension as ‘duty’ for all purposes since he was acquitted of the offences not on benefit of doubt. Hence, 3rd respondents prays to pass appropriate order in this writ petition. 5. Regulation 21 (2) (a) of the Regulations, 1967 reads that where such a competent authority holds that employee has been fully exonerated or in case of suspension, that it was unjustifiable, employee shall be granted full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended as the case may be. Therefore, disciplinary authority has to take appropriate decision in pursuance of Regulation 21 (2) (a) of the Regulations, 1967 for the purpose of deciding whether the petitioner is entitled for full pay and allowances. Admittedly, the petitioner gave a representation, dated 02-03-2010 to the respondents and the same is pending. Therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken on the representation of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner, dated 02-03-2010 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the representation of the petitioner is not available with the 1st respondent, the petitioner shall make another representation with a period of one week. No order as to costs. ---------------------- K.C.BHANU, J. DATED:22-06-2011 Hsd