HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH W.P.No. 23639 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) passed in O.A.No.8771 of 2005 dt.30-07-2009. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners and Sri Venkateswar Varanasi, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. It has been contended by the petitioners that the 1st respondent was working as a Police Constable and the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect while treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’ vide proceedings dt.02-11-2005. AKS,J & SK,J W.P.No.23639 of 2010 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment only for the proven misconduct in the enquiry. The 1st respondent has challenged the orders of punishment by filing O.A.No.8771 of 2005 before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal upheld the punishment, however, directed the petitioners to treat the suspension period i.e. from 20-04-2000 to 30-09-2001 as ‘spent on duty’. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that when once the Tribunal upheld the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, the Tribunal ought not have granted the relief in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed by setting aside the orders of the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent has contended that the Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioners to treat the suspension period as ‘spent on duty’. Admittedly, in the instant case, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishments; one is stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and also another one is to treat the AKS,J & SK,J W.P.No.23639 of 2010 3 suspension period as ‘not on duty’. As per Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules, the disciplinary authority ought to have passed the orders as to how the suspension period has to be dealt with that too after giving opportunity to the respondent. Since the said procedure as prescribed in the Fundamental Rules was not followed by the petitioners before imposing the punishment, the Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioners to treat the suspension period as ‘spent on duty’. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioners to treat the suspension period as ‘spent on duty’ as admittedly the petitioners have not followed the procedure as laid down in Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. AKS,J & SK,J W.P.No.23639 of 2010 4 8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J _____________________________ K. SARATH, J Dt.12.09.2022 kvr