HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 11168 OF 2004 Dated 22nd October, 2009. Between K. Hanumanthu ...Petitioner And AP Power Generation Corporation Limited, Rep. By its Chief Engineer, O*M, Ramagundam Thermal Station, Ramagundam and ors ...Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 11168 OF 2004 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the action of the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited (for brevity, ‘the APGENCO’), (vide the proceedings in Memo No. CER/Adm/JAO/F.DC.24/ D.No.13 dated 07.04.2004), depriving him of his salary and attendant benefits for the period 05.08.2002 to 21.12.2003 during which he was placed under suspension. He also seeks a consequential direction to the APGENCO to pay him the entire salary along with attendant benefits for the said suspension period treating him as being on duty. The petitioner was appointed as a Helper in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board ( for brevity ‘the APSEB’), the predecessor of the APGENCO, and worked in that capacity upto 1990. He was promoted as a Loco Shunter in 1990 and thereafter in 2000, as a Diesel Loco Driver. A complaint was lodged in Crime No.56 of 2002 of Ramagundam P.S. on 05.08.2002 against the petitioner under Section 304-A of the IPC. The substance of the charge was that around 03.00 A.M. on 04.08.2002, the co-driver of the petitioner was found dead owing to injuries caused on his body as a result of a bulldozer being driven over him. It was alleged that the petitioner was responsible for the same and accordingly, he was subjected to criminal proceedings and also disciplinary proceedings under the APSEB Discipline and Appeal Regulations. By memo dated 08.08.2002, the petitioner was placed under suspension and as per Regulation 56 of the aforesaid APSEB Service Regulations he was paid subsistence allowance. Whie so, he was acquitted by the competent criminal Court by judgment dated 16.10.2003 holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against him beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the APGENCO culminated in the enquiry report dated 02.12.2003, wherein that the charge levelled against him was held not proved. In view of the same, Memo dated 20.12.2003 was issued by the Chief Engineer, O&M, R.T.S., Ramagundam, reinstating the petitioner in service and directing him to report for duty. The grievance of the petitioner is that the period of suspension that he had undergone from 05.08.2002 to 21.12.2003 was not regularized inspite of his honourable acquittal in the criminal proceedings and being absolved in the departmental proceedings. The petitioner therefore made representation dated 13.02.2004 seeking regularization of the said period. However, the APGENCO, through its Chief Engineer, O&M, R.T.S., Ramagundam, vide the impugned proceedings dated 07.04.2004, rejected the request of the petitioner informing him that the period of suspension would be treated as leave without pay. Hence, this Writ Petition. In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the APGENCO, the Chief Engineer, O&M, R.T.S., Ramagundam, while admitting the aforesaid facts, stated that the petitioner did not work during the period he was placed under suspension and that he, being the disciplinary authority, in his discretion had treated the period of suspension as leave without pay. Therefore, the request of the petitioner for regularization of this period was denied. The short question that falls for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of the period during which he remained under suspension? The facts demonstrate that the petitioner was acquitted in the disciplinary proceedings and also the criminal proceedings. The order of reinstatement dated 20.12.2003 passed by the Chief Engineer, O&M, R.T.S., Ramagundam, refers to the fact that the petitioner was kept under suspension with effect from 05.08.2002 to 21.12.2003. Thereafter, the said authority, having taken note of the result in the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, stated that after consideration of the issue he ordered reinstatement of the petitioner. The said order is silent as to how the period of suspension shall be treated. It was only when the petitioner made a representation on 13.02.2004 that the disciplinary authority passed the subsequent order dated 07.04.2004, impugned in this Writ Petition, stating that the period of suspension would be treated as leave without pay. The silence of the disciplinary authority with regard to this aspect at the time of ordering reinstatement would normally mean that the reinstatement of the petitioner was without any conditions attached to it. This silence vested the petitioner with the right to assume that the period of his suspension would be regularized and that there would be no adverse effect caused to him by the said suspension. Having referred to the suspension of the petitioner pending the proceedings, the direction of reinstatement simpliciter obviously meant that the disciplinary authority intended that the period of suspension would be regularized. Having exercised his discretion at this stage of the matter, it was not open to the disciplinary authority to thereafter supplement his earlier silence on that aspect by the subsequent order nearly four months thereafter and that too, upon the application of the petitioner. I am therefore of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the regularization of the suspension period from 05.08.2002 to 21.12.2003, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner was absolved of the charges levellved against him in the disciplinary proceedings and also in the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to regularise the petitioner’s suspension period from 05.08.2002 to 21.12.2003 and pay him the entire salary with attendant benefits due to him for the said period, after deducting the amount paid to him towards his subsistence allowance. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. ------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J. Dated : 22.10.2009. Msnr.