IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8662 of 1999 Between: R. Malleswara Rao S/o R. Nagaiah R/o Sainagar, Tukaram Gate, Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 2 The Divisional Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Vijayawada 3 The Asst. Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Hubli, Karnataka State 4 Sri V. Anjaneyulu Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Nandalur, Guntakal Division, Cuddapah District. 5 N. Jayaramaiah Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Ongole Railway Station, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in imposing punishment of stoppage of force allowances for a period of one year from October, 1985, vide proceedings No.B/XP.227/44/82/11/ 31DAR/44/81 dt: 30-9-1985 (Divisional Order No.117/85) which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings Force Order No.25/99 (Lr No.X/P.227/Rev.Petn./98-23) dt: 4-2-1999 as illegal, arbitrary and voilative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitutional of India and consequently direct the respondents to give benifits on par with the respondents 4 and 5 who were juniors (as Head Rakshaks) by giving necessary promotional orders and seniority and other attendant benefits including monitery benefits by treating the suspension period as duty period and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.M.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.GOURI SHANKAR SANGHI The Court made the following : ORDER: Under the impugned order, the petitioner was imposed a minor penalty of stoppage of Force Allowance for a period of one year from October, 1985 and, in addition, the suspension period was treated as suspension only. Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that he is not pressing for the relief sought for in the writ petition insofar as imposition of the penalty of stoppage of Force Allowance for a period of one year from October, 1985 is concerned. Learned counsel would rely on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4307 of 1999 dated 1.2.2006 with regards an earlier charge relating to the very same petitioner which resulted in imposition of a minor penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of six months. While declining to interfere with the minor penalty, this Court, however, had directed that the period of suspension be treated as on duty. S r i G.S.Sanghi, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent, would fairly stated that the said order passed in W.P.No.4307 of 1999, dated 1.2.2006 has attained finality, that the respondents have not carried the matter in appeal and that the respondents had, in fact, implemented the said order. In such circumstances, an order, similar to the one passed in W.P.No.4307 of 1999, dated 1.2.2006 must be passed in the present writ petition also. Following the said judgment, the impugned order to the limited extent the period of suspension of the petitioner was treated as suspension, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed in part. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ Date: 13.06.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Tsr. Copy to 1 The Chief Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 2 The Divisional Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Vijayawada 3 The Asst. Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Hubli, Karnataka State 4. Two C.D. copies.