IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4617 of 2006 Between: Captain Bhushan Datta, s.o Major V.P.Datta, R/o Flat No.407, Venkatrama Towers, Basheerbagh, Opp:to Skyline Theatre, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad, Head Office, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. 2 General Manager (Operations) State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. 3 Dy.General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Zonal Office, P.B.No.48, Supermarket, Gulbarga. ....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ/order/s more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for records and declare the action of the respondents in denying regularization of service of petitioner for the period from 7-11-1996 to 26-4-2001 and all consequential beneﬁts vide order dt.14-9-2005 bearing Lr.No.PER/GR.IV/CAP.BHU/3373 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and extend all consequential service benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. M.V.S. SURESH KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4617 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a Certiorari to quash the Proceedings No.PER/GR.IV/CAP_BHU/3373, dated 14-9- 2005 of the Deputy General Manager (Personnel & HRD), Personnel Department, Head Oﬃce, Hyderabad and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the period of service between 7-11-1996 and 26-4-2001 and extend all consequential service benefits to the petitioner. It appears, petitioner joined the service of the respondent-Bank as Assistant Security Oﬃcer on 1-6-1985. He was promoted as Deputy Manager-Security with eﬀect from 8- 1-1993. While so, he was suspended from service on 8-11-1996 on the ground that he was involved in the oﬀences under Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act,1995 in Crime No.256 of 1996 on the ﬁle of Abids Police Station, Hyderabad. After full trial, he was convicted for the said oﬀences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a ﬁne of Rs.20,000/-. In the meanwhile, the suspension order was revoked on 26-4-2001 and he was reinstated into service. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, petitioner ﬁled an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.409 of 2001 on the ﬁle of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the same was allowed and remanded by Judgment dated 31-1-2002. Challenging the same, he ﬁled a revision in Criminal Revision Petition No.499 of 2001 and this Court permitted the petitioner to compound the oﬀence by paying a compounding fee of Rs.200/-. Thereafter, he was issued with a notice on 2-1-2002 as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Petitioner submitted his explanation that conviction recorded against him was set aside. Respondents, without conducting any enquiry, passed an Order dated 31-1-2002 dismissing him from service. On appeal, the order of dismissal was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated into service. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the appeal was allowed and as per Rule 8(1) of the State Bank Oﬃcers’ Service Rules,1979 he is entitled for regularization of the suspension period, respondents did not regularize his services from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement i.e. from 7-11-1996 to 26-4-2001. Though he ﬁled a representation seeking to regularize the said period, but the same was rejected by an Order dated 14-9-2005 of the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the 1st respondent on 1-10- 2005, but, according to him, the same was dismissed. Challenging the rejection Order dated 14-9-2005, he ﬁled the present Writ Petition. A detailed counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the respondents stating that the petitioner, who was working as a Security Oﬃcer, was got arrested on the ground that he was involved in the oﬀences under Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act and the very conduct of the petitioner amounts to moral turpitude; hence, he was suspended from service. Petitioner has compounded the oﬀence with the permission of the Court and paid the compound fee. In fact, petitioner was arrested for the oﬀences relating to Prohibition Act twice on 12-10-1995 and 3-11-1996. Under those circumstances, the competent authority ordered that the suspension period of the petitioner be treated as ‘not spent on duty’ and he is not eligible for any other beneﬁts, including increments for the said period. Rule 8(1) of the State Bank Oﬃcers’ Service Rules is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The competent authority has considered the representation of the petitioner and disposed of the same in accordance with law and there is no irregularity or illegality in the Orders passed by the respondents. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides and perused the impugned Order and other material made available on record. Petitioner was arrested and a case in Crime No.256 of 1996 on the ﬁle of Abids Police Station, Hyderabad was booked against him under sections 8(a) and 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act. Thereafter, he was suspended from service on 8-11-1996 and was reinstated on 26-4-2001. Though the trial Court convicted him, in the revision ﬁled before this Court, the conviction ended in compounding of the oﬀences by imposing a compounding fee of Rs.200/-. Once the petitioner compounded the oﬀence by paying a meagre compounding fee of Rs.200/-, that itself will not permit the respondents from dismissing the petitioner on the ground of moral turpitude. However, on appeal, the appellate authority set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation requesting the Bank to regularize the period of suspension i.e. from 7-11-1996 to 26- 4-2001. However, the 2nd respondent passed an Order dated 17-9-2004 to treat the said period as ‘not spent on duty’. This, I am of the opinion is not a punishment in consonance with the oﬀence alleged against the petitioner. Treating the period of suspension as not on duty for about 4½ years would amount to imposing a major penalty. Further, it is not an oﬀence, which arose while the petitioner was performing his duties as an employee of the Bank. Therefore, the punishment of treating the period from 7-11-1996 to 26-4-2001 as ‘not spent on duty’ is liable to be modiﬁed as a continuous service for the purpose of seniority and notional increments only. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the suspension period of the petitioner from 7-11-1996 to 26-4-2001 as continuous service for the purpose of seniority and notional increments; however, he is not entitled for any back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. 23-10-2008 prk