IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21389 OF 2011 Date:29.07. 2011 Between:- P.Arjuna Rao .. Petitioner And Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, rep.by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not treating the period of suspension i.e., from 01.09.2006 to 21.02.2010, as on duty and not releasing pay and allowances and other benefits in favour of the petitioner despite proceedings, dated 15.07.2010, and order, dated 24.02.2011, passed by respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension as on duty and grant all the benefits. 2. The petitioner is working as a Driver in the respondent Corporation. On 01.09.2006, he was placed under suspension on certain allegations by the District Collector/Chairman, Krishna District S.C.Cooperative Society Limited, Machilipatnam. Thereafter, after conducting enquiry, respondent No.1 vide order, dated 15.07.2010, dropped all the charges against the petitioner by warning him to be more careful in future in the discharge of his duties and reinstated him into duty. The petitioner joined duty on 22.07.2010 and submitted a representation, dated 13.08.2010, to respondent No.2 to treat the period of suspension as on duty and release him all the allowances. Respondent No.2 forwarded his representation to respondent No.1 on 12.11.2010 seeking clarification, who in turn passed order, dated 24.02.2011, directing respondent No.2 to examine the proposal in terms of G.O.Ms.No.214 Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.12.1997, but no action has been taken. He again made a representation to respondent No.1 in the month of March, 2011 to that effect, but in vain. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in pursuance of the disciplinary proceedings, the charges framed against the petitioner were dropped with a warning to be more careful in future and that the period of suspension has not been regulated, and hence, he prays to give direction to respondent No.2 to regulate the said period and release the pay and allowances. 4. The factual matrix is not in dispute. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner with regard to certain misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. After conducting enquiry, the disciplinary authority dropped the charges framed against the petitioner with a warning to be more careful in future in the discharge of his duties and accordingly, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked and he was immediately reinstated into duty on 15.07.2010. However, the period of suspension i.e., 01.09.2006 to 21.02.2010 has not been regulated. Therefore, necessary orders have to be passed by respondent No.2 to treat the said period as on duty or not on duty. 5. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to take an appropriate decision with regard to the suspension period and pass necessary orders in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the post of the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 29th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21389 OF 2011 Date:29.07.2011 AMD