THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.25240 of 2011 Dated:13.09.2011 Between: The District Educational Officer (Agency), ITDA, Utnoor, Adilabad District, Sri Mesram Manohar (DEO) .. Petitioner And The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.25240 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The third respondent, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe, at the relevant time was working as Secondary Grade Teacher. He was arrested in connection with Crime No.16 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) of P.S. Jainoor, Adilabad District. The Inspector of Police, Jainoor, sent a report to the second petitioner herein (hereafter, the second respondent) informing that the applicant was arrested in connection with the cognizable offence. In exercise of powers under Section 8(1)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, the second respondent placed the applicant under suspension until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings relating to the charge. The criminal case was investigated into and a charge sheet was filed on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad. By judgment dated 03.03.2010, the applicant was acquitted holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The applicant then approached the first petitioner herein (hereafter, first respondent) by making an application on 12.03.2010 seeking reinstatement and settlement of suspension period. By an order dated 18.04.2010, the first respondent reinstated the applicant at Government Tribal Welfare Primary School, Lalshavguda School Complex, Thadihathnoor and further ordered that the period of suspension should be treated as leave. Being aggrieved by the said order treating the period of suspension as leave, the applicant filed O.A.No.543 of 2011. The petitioner contended that when he was acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled for reinstatement and the period of suspension has to be treated as duty with all wages. Learned Tribunal following the decision of the Full Bench in District Manager, APSRTC v Labour Court, Guntur[1] and allowed the O.A. on 24.03.2011 directing to treat the period of suspension from 24.06.2008 to 17.04.2010 as duty and pay full salary and allowances. This order is assailed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the O.A. The counsel for the petitioners would submit that while reinstating the applicant, the District Educational Officer (DEO) treated the period of absence as eligible leave and therefore no prejudice is caused to him. He further submits that the applicant was tried for a serious offence of rape and acquittal would not preclude the petitioner from conducting enquiry. The facts in the judgment of the Full Bench are almost similar to the facts in this case. Therein an Assistant Mechanical Supervisor of APSRTC was suspended pending trial of a criminal offence. The criminal case ended in acquittal. Therefore, when remuneration was denied for the period of suspension, he filed the writ petition before this Court. I n District Manager, APSRTC, the Full Bench of this Court held that as the order of suspension was passed pending criminal case, it merged with the order of acquittal and therefore denial of remuneration for the period of suspension which itself was imposed pending criminal trial is wholly unreasonable. It was also held that any law denying the acquitted employee his remuneration for the period of suspension would be beyond the legislative competence since such a law would be in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment in Brahma Chandra Gupta v. Union of India[2], wherein the Supreme Court directed payment of full salary and allowances for the period of suspension when the criminal case ended in acquittal. In view of the law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court, we would not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 13.09.2011 KH [1] AIR 1980 AP 132 [2] AIR 1984 SC 380