IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH 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 : 26779 of 1999 Between: B.Tirupathaiah S/o. Sokkaiah Godavary khani, Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary Home (SCA) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Inspector General of Police Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar. 3 Registrar, A.P. Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad .....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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ of mandamus, declaring the Proc.No.20/APP/A/88, Dt.31/5/1989 read with proc. of even No.Dt.26/4/91, so far as they relate to treatment of the period spent under suspension and out of job as "not duty" and the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.25642/1991 Dt.27/10/99 as illegal arbitrary, and violative of Art.14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as principles of natural justice and direct the respondents to regulate the period from 17/01/1981 to 27/10/1988 as period spent on duty for purpose of leave, increments and pension and to pay under the provisions of F.R.54(4) and 54(7) an amount equal to 75% of the full pay and allowances to which the petitioner is entitled , had he not been suspended from service and dismissed later for the period 17/1/1981 to 27/10/1988 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RAMABRAHMAM Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26779 of 1999 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Ramulu) This writ petition is directed against the order made in OA No.25642 of 1991, dated 27-10-1999 on the file of AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. It appears, the petitioner while working as Sub Inspector of Police, Husnabad, Karimnagar District, was involved in an ACB case and basing on the report from the DSP (ACB), Warangal, that the petitioner accepted illegal gratification of Rs.200/-, proceedings were initiated against him and the Principal Special Judge, SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, on evidence, found him guilty of the said offence and was convicted and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. Consequent upon his conviction in the said case, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings C.No.2/PR/K/81-83, dated 28-11-1983. Aggrieved by the conviction orders, the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court and this Court by order dated 21-2-1986 confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to one of imprisonment “till rising of the Court” along with the fine of Rs.300/-. Thereafter, the petitioner seems to have submitted a representation to modify the punishment of dismissal from service on the ground that this Court has reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of “till rising of the Court”. However, the said representation was rejected by the respondents and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed RP No.531 of 1988 before the AP Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the said RP and while setting aside the dismissal order, remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to re-examine his case on the question of imposing appropriate penalty. Thereafter, it appears, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 25-11-1988 to the respondents to re-instate him into service and also for payment of salary from the date of his suspension, in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 28-10-1988. In pursuance of his representation dated 25-11-1988, the Government forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent for taking appropriate action in the matter. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings C. No.20/APP/A/88, dated 31-5-1989 reinstated the petitioner into service from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal i.e. 28-10-1988 and modified the punishment of dismissal from service to that of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year with effect on future increments and pension and the period during which he was out of service was treated as ‘not on duty’. It is stated that the petitioner joined duty as SI of Police on 16-6-1989 and the salary and allowances were paid to him for the period from 28-10-1988 i.e. from the date of the order of the Tribunal passed in RP No.531 of 1988 till 15-6-1989 i.e. the day before the petitioner joined duty. It is further stated that the petitioner once again made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 9-8-1989 stating that in view of the order dated 28-10-1988 of the Tribunal, he should be deemed to be in service and entitled for the benefit of salary and allowances from the date of his suspension i.e. 16-1-1981 and also requested to treat the period of suspension and the period during which he was out of service as on duty under the provisions of Fundamental Rules. Since no orders were passed on his representation dated 9-8-1989, the petitioner filed OA No.8880 of 1991 before the AP Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 27-2-1991 disposed of the said OA directing the respondents to examine the representation of the petitioner dated 9-8-1989 with reference to the relevant rules and to pass appropriate orders thereon. Pursuant to the said directions, the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings RC No.20/APP/A/88, dated 26-4-1991 rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary and allowances for the suspension period and also for the period during which he was out of duty. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present OA No.25642 of 1991 on the file of AP Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the respective contentions raised by the parties, by the impugned order, dismissed the OA. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the respondents having imposed a lesser punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year, ought not to have directed to give such effect on future increments and pension and the Tribunal erred in not considering Rule 54 (4) and 54 (7) of Fundamental Rules and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to full salary and allowances during the period of his suspension and the period during which he was not on duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that since now the petitioner is retired from service, the direction in so far as it relates to have effect on future increments and also pension of the petitioner is liable to be modified to that of stoppage of increment of one year only. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents on the other hand, submitted that inasmuch as the conviction recorded against the petitioner was maintained and it is only the sentence that was reduced and also in view of the direction of the Tribunal passed in RP No.531 of 1988, the 2nd respondent passed orders reinstating the petitioner into service, there is no basis for the petitioner to claim payment of salary and allowances for the period during which he was under suspension and out of service and, considering all these aspects of the matter, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the OA. 5. We have given our earnest consideration to the respective submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. 6. Admittedly, the conviction recorded against the petitioner was maintained and it is only the sentence that was reduced to that of “till the raising of the Court” by this Court. The Tribunal in RP No.531 of 1988 issued certain directions to re-examine the case of the petitioner, in view modification of the sentence imposed on the petitioner to suffer imprisonment from six months to that of “till raising of the Court” by this Court. Pursuant to the said direction issued by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar, while re-instating the petitioner into service modified the punishment to that of reduction in time scale by one stage for one year, with effect on future increments and pension. The conviction recorded against the petitioner is confirmed by this Court in Criminal appeal and attained finality and, therefore, the question of payment of full salary and allowances for the period of suspension and the period during which the petitioner was not on duty does not arise. However, inasmuch as it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has now been retired from service, we deem it appropriate to restrict stoppage of one increment for one year only without effect on future increments and pension. It is further made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any amounts like arrears of salary etc. by virtue of this order and it is to be made applicable only for the purpose of pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 7. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ C.V. Ramulu, J Dated:24-7-2008 Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MN}