THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3033 of 2008 Dated:15.02.2008 Between: The State of A.P., reptd., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Finance and Planning Department, Hyderabad and two others. ..... PETITIONERS And K.Janardhan Reddy .....RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3033 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for petitioners, as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. This writ of certiorari is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to call for the records pertaining to the order, dated 11.09.2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), allowing the application O.A.No.6752 of 2006, filed by the respondent herein. 3. Petitioners are respondents and respondent is applicant, in the O.A., before the Tribunal. 4. Respondent had filed the said O.A., aggrieved by the proceedings in Roc.No.43277-A/L1/94, dated 03.11.2005, issued by petitioner No.3, whereby the period of suspension of respondent from 18.10.1994 to 09.11.1995 was treated as “NOT DUTY” under Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules on the ground that he was not exonerated honourably though disciplinary proceedings were dropped against him. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for petitioners, submits that as provided under Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules, the competent authority is at an obligation to record a finding as to how the period of suspension has to be reckoned. 6. It this connection, it is to be seen that the Fundamental Rules are specific to the effect that if no finding was recorded as to how the period of suspension of the employee has to be reckoned, it is deemed that such period of suspension has to be treated as not on duty. This is notwithstanding the obligation cast upon the competent authority to record its findings, when a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated, shall make a specific order as regards the computation of period of suspension, whether spent on duty or otherwise, depending upon the facts and circumstances and gravity of the charges. 7. In the present case, respondent was kept under suspension between 18.10.1994 to 09.11.1995. Subsequently, for certain irregularities, charge sheet had been issued, departmental proceedings were initiated and an enquiry had been conducted, and basing on the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, having concurred with the report of the enquiry officer, had exonerated the respondent from all the charges. 8. In fact, it was stated in the order, dated 03.11.2005, passed by the disciplinary authority, that in view of the long service rendered by respondent, a lenient view has been taken and the charges have been dropped against him. 9. We are of the view that, notwithstanding, the findings/reasons for dropping the charge sheet, the ultimate fact that remains on record is “dropping of the charges”. We are of the further view that dropping of the charges is the only significant factor that has to be taken into account. The other findings would fade into irrelevancy for the simple reason that the charges have been dropped. 10. Further, the law is settled as regards the question as to how the period of suspension is to be treated, which would arise only in case of awarding a punishment, may be minor or major. But, in the instant case that is not the situation. 11. As already noticed, this is a case where the charges against respondent have been totally dropped. Irrespective of the reasons to do so, as a result, the record of respondent had become clean and, therefore, the question of recording a finding by the disciplinary authority as to how the period of suspension is to be computed does not arise at all. 12. In other words, the case of respondent shall be considered as if there were no charges levelled against him at all. The natural corollary would be; respondent would be entitled to all the benefits form the date of his keeping under suspension till the date of reinstatement, in view of the final order i.e., the impugned order, passed by the Tribunal. 13. Having regard to the said facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was absolutely right in arriving at its conclusion in the impugned order and granting the relief as prayed for by the respondent, in the said O.A., and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 14. For the foregoing, the writ petition is lack of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 16. It is needless to mention that the respondent shall be accorded with all the benefits with utmost expedition, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 15TH FERBRUARY 2008 DR