HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.24727 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Ramulu) This writ petition is directed against the order made in O.A.No.549 of 1996 dated 22-7-1999 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. It appears, the petitioner while working as Assistant Professor of Medicine with Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupathi, was removed from service, which was subject-matter of earlier R.P.No.1351 of 1998. The said R.P. was disposed of on 22-2-1994 with the following direction: “Taking into consideration all the above circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the punishment of removal from service imposed in this case is harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the charge levelled against the petitioner. Since this Tribunal do not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment, we direct the Government to review the punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner and to consider imposing of any punishment other than removal, dismissal and compulsory retirement taking into consideration the advice rendered by the A.P. Public Service Commission in this matter. This has to be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The R.P. is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” Thereafter, the Government in pursuance of the above direction, have taken up the matter and passed the order in G.O.Ms.No.228, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (A2) Department, dated 08-05-1995 modifying the order of removal from service, as under: “a) to impose a punishment of stoppage of (3) three increments without cumulative eﬀect be imposed on Dr. K.Raja Reddy, for the charges of unauthorised absence held proved against him; that b) to treat the period of suspension of the Oﬃcer from 7- 6-79 to 9-9-1980, as period not spent on duty for all purposes (under FR.54-B) and the quantum of pay and allowances payable to the oﬃcer during the said period, be limited to subsistence allowance only; that c) to treat the period of unauthorised absence for the periods from 28-3-79 to 6-6-1979 and from 10-9-1980 to 4- 12-1982 as ‘dies non’, under the note-1 to F.R.18; and d) to treat the period from 11-8-1984 to 22-8-94 ( i.e. the period between removal and reinstatement to duty of the Officer) as leave to which the officer is eligible.” Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner ﬁled O.A.No.549 of 1996 questioning the stoppage of three increments without cumulative eﬀect and also treating the suspension period from 7-6-1979 to 09-9-1980 as ‘not on duty’ and the suspension period from 11-8-1984 to 22-8-1994 as ‘on leave’. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions held that in the earlier judgment, the Tribunal did not ﬁnd any irregularity in conducting the enquiry, therefore the applicant cannot again complain that the enquiry is not properly held. The oﬃcial respondents have taken a lenient view and instead of imposing the punishment of removal, a penalty of stoppage of three increments without cumulative eﬀect was imposed. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion held therein, O.A. was dismissed. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that he is not concerned with the stoppage of three increments without cumulative eﬀect or treating the period of suspension from 07- 6-79 to 09-9-1980 as period not spent on duty for all purposes. But, he is aggrieved by the order treating the period of suspension from 11-8-1984 to 22-8-1994 i.e. the period between the date of removal from service and date of reinstatement, as leave to which the petitioner was eligible. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that when once O.A. was allowed and the punishment was found to be harsh and alternative punishment was imposed in the impugned order, the period spent in the course of deciding the matter by the Government, cannot be treated as leave as per eligibility. In fact, the petitioner had hardly any leave, therefore it should be treated as extraordinary leave particularly for reckoning the pensionary beneﬁts. We agree with the contention. The period spent from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement cannot be treated as leave. That period has to be regulated as per the judgment of the court. The Tribunal has held that the punishment of removal was harsh and disproportionate and in view of that, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.228 dated 08-5-1995 has taken decision to impose the punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative eﬀect, which is a minor punishment. Further, in regard to the period of suspension treating it as ‘not on duty’, no fault can be found with the Government. But, the Government ought not to have passed the order treating the period between the date of termination and date of reinstatement as leave. This is the period for which the petitioner is entitled for reckoning for pension as he had suﬀered the punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative eﬀect and no further punishment can be imposed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to treat the period from 11-8-1984 to 22-8-1994 i.e. from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement into service as ‘on duty’. However, we make it clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages or arrears of salary. All the beneﬁts shall be conferred notionally for the purpose of computation of pension. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 17-07-2008 bsc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24727 of 1999 Between: Dr.K.Raja Reddy S/o.K.Gangi Reddy R/o.5-1-96,Sarojini Devi Road Tirupathi Chittoor Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary to Govt Govt. of A.P,Health Medical & Family Welfare (A1) Dept Secretariat Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Medical Education Govt.of A.P Hyderabad. 3 The Principal, Sri Venkateswara Medical College Tirupathi Chittoor Dist. 4 The A.P.Administrative Tribunal Purani Haveli Hyderabad Rep.by its Registrar. .....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 a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari after calling for the records relating to the judgement rendered in O.A.No.549/96, dt.22-7-99 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following :