THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.NO.17850 of 2008 21-09-2010 BETWEEN; B.Shankar Babu son of Ramaiah ...Petitioner vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Director, Treasuries and Accounts, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.NO. 17850 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The memo of the 2nd respondent dated 19-12-2007 which decline release of full pay and allowances to the petitioner notwithstanding th order of the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool dated 27-10-200 (declaring that the period during 02-12-2006 to 05-10-2007 wherei the petitioner was under suspension pending inquiry, shall be period spen on duty for all purposes, under Rule 54-B (4) read with Rule 54-B(3) of th Fundamental Rules), is assailed in this writ petition. The petitioner while serving as Superintendent in the Judicial Unit o Kurnool was placed under suspension w.e.f 02-12-2006 on allegations o involvement in the commission of an offence registered as Cr.No.29 o 2006 of I town P.S. Kurnool. On 30-12-2006 a charge memo was issue asserting three (3) charges. After receipt of explanation from the petitione an inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer in his report held charges and 2 as not proved and that charge No.3 alone was proved. Charge No. pertains to the petitioner leaving head-quarters and proceeding t Hyderabad on a public holiday (21-05-2006) without prior permission o the Presiding Officer and thus exhibiting a conduct unbecoming of Government servant. On receipt of the inquiry report, by the order date 28-09-2007 the disciplinary authority-the learned Principal District Judge Kurnool concurred with the inquiry report including as to the finding of gui of the petitioner as regards charge No.3 and visited the petitioner with th punishment of “censure” while revoking the suspension. O revocation of suspension, the petitioner was reinstated to active duty w.e 05-10-2007. The disciplinary authority by a subsequent order dated 27-10 2007, duly considering the representation of the petitioner and the fact tha what was imposed was a very minor penalty of censure and in view of th technical misconduct by the petitioner of leaving headquarters (even on public holiday) without prior permission of the competent authority directed that the period of suspension during 02-12-2006 to 05-10-200 shall be treated as duty and full pay and allowances for the said period shall be paid to the petitioner. Despite the decision of the disciplinary authority the 2n respondent by the impugned proceedings held that imposition of th penalty of “censure” puts the case of the petitioner within the provisions o F.R.54-B (5) and therefore the disciplinary authority could not hav directed payment of full salary and allowances for the period in question. F.R. 54-B (5) is applicable to cases other than those falling under Sub rules (2) and (3) of the main provision. The case of the petitioner wa processed under the provisions of F.R.54-B (3) and (4). The disciplinar authority was of the view (as the authority competent to orde reinstatement) that the initial suspension of the petitioner in view of th only charge found proved against him of proceeding away from the head quarters without prior permission, was wholly unjustified and therefor held that the petitioner be treated as having been on duty during the perio of suspension and entitled to full pay and allowances. Clause (5) of FR.54 B is applicable only to cases which fall outside FR.54-B (3) and (2). Th 2nd respondent has wholly misdirected himself in assuming that the cas of the petitioner falls under F.R.54-B(5). Since the case of the petitione clearly falls and was processed as one falling under the provisions o F.R.54-B (3) and (4), there was no justification what-so-ever for the 2n respondent holding that the petitioner is disentitled to full pay an allowances. The memo of the 2nd respondent is thus fundamentally flawe and liable to be invalidated. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is allowed. The impugne memo issued by the 2nd respondent dated 19-12-2007 is set aside and th respondents are directed to forthwith process and sanction and pay the fu pay and allowances to the petitioner for the period of suspension durin 02-12-2006 to 05-10-2007. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ___________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 21st SEPTEMBER 2010. TSNR