IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 59 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06/08/2008 in WP NO : 7592 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: D. Ramulu S/o. Butchaiah, R/o. MIG-24, Housing Board Colony, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Chairman & Managing Director, A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent Engineer (Operation) A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Ranga Reddy (South) at Hyderabad. 3 The Divisional Engineer (Operation) A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Vikarabad , Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.V.RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order, dated 06.08.2008 in WP No.7592 of 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition disentitling the petitioner for the difference of salary in respect of the period during which he was under suspension, the writ petitioner, preferred this Appeal. The petitioner, a retired employee of the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited, while in service was prosecuted for the offences under Secs. 498-A and 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and consequent upon his arrest on 30.4.2002, he was placed under suspension by order dated 20.5.2002. After conclusion of trial in SC No. 19 of 2005, the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, acquitted the petitioner of the charges vide judgment dated 23.9.2005 and thereafter the petitioner was reinstated into service on 19.1.2006. The claim of the petitioner for difference of salary was rejected by Memo dated 5.6.2006 on the ground that his arrest and consequential suspension was not connected with the official duties and, therefore, he is not entitled to the difference of salary. The said memo is challenged in this writ petition. The learned Single Judge having regard to the distinction made in clause 6 of Regulation 57 of the A.P. State Electricity Board Service Regulation, has held that since the prosecution of the petitioner was not for any offence arising out of the official duties but it was for grave offence under Sec. 302 IPC consequent to death of his daughter-in-law in suspicious circumstances, he is not entitled to the difference of salary for the period during which he was under suspension. Heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited. Evidently, a bare reading of clause 6 of Regulation 57 of the A.P. State Electricity Board Service Regulation makes it clear that a distinction is drawn between the cases where the prosecution of an employee is in relation to an offence arising out of official duties on one hand and other offences, on the other. For the offences arising out of official duties, an employee is entitled to the difference of salary on being reinstated, which is not same in other cases. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with the finding of the learned Single Judge that since the petitioner was prosecuted for the offences under Sec. 498-A and 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC, consequent upon the death of his daughter-in-law under suspicious circumstances, which are grave in nature, he is not disentitled to claim the difference of salary for the period during which he was under suspension. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.. No order as to cost. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy February 2, 2009 MAS