IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 2632 of 2008 Between: The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND P. Dubbaiah, PC 5576 Hussainialam PS. 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 an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to and connected with order dated 12-6-2007 in OANo. 7396 of 2006 on the file of the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash and set aside the same by holdingas erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent: MR.M.DAMODAR REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No. 2632 of 2008 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 12.6.2007 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 7396 of 2006. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The respondent herein approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents – petitioners herein to treat the period during which he was under suspension as on duty in view of the fact that he was acquitted in the criminal case filed against him. Though the learned Government Pleader contended that the respondent herein is not entitled for any relief as prayed for by him in the O.A. and the Tribunal has failed to consider the said fact, a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal discloses that the Tribunal has not given any direction to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner as on duty. Taking into consideration FR 54-B (1), under which the competent authority shall also make a specific order whether or not the period of suspension shall be treated as the period spent on duty and having noticed that the order of revocation of suspension dated 18.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Police does not contain any direction as to whether the period of suspension of the petitioner has to be treated as on duty or not, the Tribunal had directed the petitioner herein to pass necessary orders under FR 54-B regarding the manner as to how the period of suspension of the respondent has to be treated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. The writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. G. CHANDRAIAH, J. Date: 10-04-2008. MVB.