IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURALBE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.1709 of 2004 Between: N.Hanumaiah … Petitioner And The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.1709 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not treating the petitioner as in service during the period of suspension and removal and not granting the consequential benefits, though the petitioner was acquitted in Crl.A.No.303 of 1997 dated 15.02.2001 by this Court and the Apex Court dismissed the special leave appeal filed by the Government, as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as in service during the period of suspension and removal from 17.07.1992 to May, 1997 and to pass all the consequential benefits from 17.07.1992 to till date of retirement. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as LDC in the year 1964 and he was promoted, from time to time, as Tax Inspector on 07.02.1990. It is submitted that during the year 1990 the petitioner and another alleged to have committed an offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a case was registered in C.C. No.23 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Special Judge, SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad. In the said case, the petitioner was convicted and was imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.303 of 1997 and the same was partly allowed on 15.02.2001 holding that the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner are set aside. Assailing the same, the Government preferred Special Leave Petition and the same was also dismissed on 19.11.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 23.10.2002 with a request to treat the petitioner as in service during the period of suspension and removal and to grant the consequential benefits. Based on the said representation, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the 1st respondent, who in turn issued a Memo dated 07.05.2003 stating that the regularisation of the period spent under suspension and after dismissal till the due date of retirement following the Supreme Court decision and the amended proviso of FR.54-B, the period has to be treated as not duty. Further action to release pension may be taken according to the rules. It is further submitted that the petitioner was retired on 31.12.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents and one of that is dated 22.07.2003 to treat the petitioner as in service during the suspension and removal period and to grant consequential monetary benefits. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, counter has been filed, inter alia, submitted that as per the amendment orders to Sub-rule (5) of F.R. 54-B, relating to the regularizing of the period of suspension, the question of entitlement of an employee to consequential benefits on reinstatement following acquittal in criminal trial, the petitioner is not entitled to the said benefits. Therefore, the present writ petition may be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that consequent to acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case, he made a representation to the respondent authorities to treat him as in service during the period of suspension and removal and to grant the consequential benefits. Based on which, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the 1st respondent, who in turn issued Memo dated 07.05.2003 informing the 2nd respondent that the regularisation of the period spent under suspension and after dismissal till the due date of retirement following the Supreme Court decision and the amendment provision of FR 54-B, the period has to be treated as not duty. The 2nd respondent also informed the same vide proceedings dated 26.05.2003. Except the above, no specific reason has been assigned in respect of the case of the petitioner. The impugned Memo dated 07.05.2003 and consequential proceedings dated 26.05.2003 are general in nature but not as specific. The specific order must be in the form of G.O. and must be passed for each Government servant in treating the period of suspension and dismissal has duty or not on the duty as the facts and circumstances varies from case to case. The competent authority has to apply its mind in passing the specific order and an opportunity is to be given to the Government servant and it must be passed with objective consideration and assessment of all relevant facts as it affects the Government servant financially. The Government has issued the Memo dated 07.05.2003 general in nature and based on the said Memo, the 2nd respondent issued consequential proceedings dated 26.05.2003. Therefore, the Memo issued by the 1st respondent is not specific and there is no application of mind and therefore, the impugned Memo and consequential proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice and the same are liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. There are no disputed facts. The only point for consideration is that whether the Memo dated 07.05.2003 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential proceedings dated 26.05.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent are in accordance with law? For considering the said aspect, it is to be seen what Memo dated 07.05.2003, said, which reads as follows: “The attention of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is invited to the reference cited and she is informed that the regularization of the period spent under suspension and after dismissal till the due date of retirement following the Supreme Court decision and the amendment provision of FR 54-B, the period has to be treated as not duty. Further action to release pension may be taken according to the rules.” Further, it is also to be seen what Proceedings dated 26.05.2003 says, which reads as follows: “The Govt. in the reference read above have issued orders treating the period spent under suspension and after dismissal till the due date of retirement as NOT DUTY in pursuance of the Supreme Court decision and the amended provision of F.R. 54-B and also to take further action to release of his pension according to rules. In view of the above, he Secretary MCH, who is the Drawing Officer for Election Section, is requested to take further immediate action in respect of Sri N.Hanumaiah, Tax Inspector Circle No.1 (U/S and retired while working in Election Section) for Regularisation of period spent by him under suspension and after dismissal till the due date of retirement as NOT DUTY, and also take further action for settlement of pensioner benefits as quickly as possible.” From a perusal of the above, Memo dated 07.05.2003 and consequential Proceedings dated 26.05.2003, except referring that in pursuance of the Supreme Court decision and the amended provision of F.R. 54-B (without any specific reference of the judgment and referring what the amendment of F.R.54-B) nothing has been mentioned, which can be said that these are not the reasoned orders. Therefore, without touching the undisputed facts, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Government to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, while setting aside the Memo dated 07.05.2003 and its consequential proceedings dated 26.05.2003, the respondents, particularly the 1st respondent, are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and to pass appropriate/reasoned orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 11.03.2011 LSK