WP/34440/2017 of D.Srinivas Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, on 12 February 2026

ORDER:.

. Petitioner Respondents This writ petition is filed, aggrieved by the

18. 1 1 .2O 15, to the extent of treating the period of proceedings of the lst respondent in G.o.Rt.No.973, dated suspension and out of ernployment as 'not on duty''

2. Brief facts of the case are as follou's :- (a) The petitioner rffas appointed as a constable in the Police Department, and he has been discharging his duties without any complaint- While So, a case in Cr.No.3,5O of 2OO4'v\ras registered against the petitioner and two others for offences punishable under Sections 364, 3O2 and 2Ol of the IPC at Kushaiguda Police Station. The petitioner was acquitted in Cr.No.36O of 2OO4 (S.C.No.20 of 2006l by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District.

(b) Another case in Cr.No.418 of 2OO3 was registered against the petitioner in the year 2oll for the offences punishable under Sections 364,302 and 2OL read with 34 IPC. Based on the said crimes, an enquiry was conducted, and the 3.a respondent passed an order dated

14. O9.2OO9 dismissing t-he petitioner from service and treating the period of suspension from 01.05.2009 to

14. O9.2009 as 'Not on duty'. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2"d respondent, which was rejected on 24.O5.2OL3. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition, and the l"t respondent vide proceedings dated 18.11 .2OI5, while setting aside the order of dismissal, treated the period of suspension and out of employment as 'not on duty'.

(c) Aggrieved by the order dated 18. 11.2O 15, 1J insofar a.s treating the period of suspension and out of employment as ,not on duty" the present 'uvrit petition is filed.

3. Lee.rned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by r.irtue of the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the 1"t respondent, the petitioner joined the service on 14.01 .2Crl6. The 1.t respond.ent ought to have considered the acqtrittal judgment and ought not to have t.reated the period cf suspension and out of employment as 'not on d.uty'.'Ihelstrespondentoughttohavereinstatedthe petitionr:r into service with all consequential benefits' Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the '*'rit petition by settirr.g aside the impugned order of the 1'r respondent to the extent of treating the period of suspension and out of empl<lyment as .not on duty,and allow the '*,rit petition.

Ttre 3..1 respondent filed a counter affidavit stating as follo'*,s :- (al The petitioner, who was appointed as a police constalrle was involved in a case in cr.No.350 0f 2004 at

Kushaiguda Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 tPC, and he was acquitted by the tV Additional District ancl Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District on 27 .O2.2OO7 .

(b) Another case in Cr.No.418 of 2OO3 was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 2O 1 read vvith 34 IPC, and he was arrested on 01.O5.2009 and remanded to judicial custody, and he was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 12.O5.2OO9 .

(c) The disciplinary authority, after conducting an enquiry, dismissed the petitioner from service vide proceedings datecl 14.O9.2OO9 and treated the period of suspension from 0i.05.2009 to 1,4.O9.2OO9 as "Not on duty". Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred. art appeal before the 2"d respondent, which was rejected on

24. O5.2O13. Further aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the 1't respondent.

(d) The lst respondent under the impugned orJ.er, while setting aside the order of dismissal, treated the f ) period of suspension and out of employment as "not on duty". T,t the extent of treating the suspension period and outofenrploymentas.notonduty,,thepetitionerfiledthe present r,vrit Petition.

5. Leerned Government Pleader appearing for the respondr:nts submits that the petitioner is not entitled for back wages in view of the acquittal in the criminal case' Crimina]chargesanddepartmentalchargesarenotone andtheSame.Thedisciplinaryauthority,afterconducting an enquiry, dismissed' the petitioner from service and treatedtheperiodofsuspensionfrom0l.05.2009to l4.og.2oogas.notond.uty,.Afteracquittalbythecriminal court,t,hel"trespondent,whilesettingasidetheorderof dismissal from service, rightly treated the period of suspenl;ion and out of employment as 'not on duty' as per thcpro'risionsofFR-54andaspertheprincipleof.nowork no pay, Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief soughtinthepresentwritpetition.Hence,thewritpetition lacks rrterit and is liable to be dismissed'

r*1

6. Heard Sri R.Giri Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-l appearing for the respondents'

7. tn the present case, the Government vide impugned G.O.RI.No.973, dated 18.11.2015, while setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service, treated the period of suspension and out of employment as 'not on duty'. Aggrieved by the said ord.er, the present writ petition is filed B. The main contention of the petitioner is that in both the criminal cases, i.e., s.c.No.20 0f 2006 and S.c.No.328 of 2o11, the trial court itself acquitted him vide judgments dated 27.O2.2OO7 and 30.1 l.2ol2, respectively and against the said. acquittal judgments, the respondent authorities did not prefer anY aPPeal. g. The main grievance of the petitioner is that once the trial Court acquitted him in both the criminal cases, the Govt., while setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service, ought to have granted all consequential benefits'

The petitioner contends that he was illegatly implicated in criminal cases without any fault on his part and that he $,as trnemployed for nearly ten years'

10. To support his contentions' learned counsel appearingi for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in UNION OF INOIL AND O?I{ERS Vs' JAIPAL

11. [n the above said case' the appeal was filed against theorderoftheDivisionBenchoftheHighCourtofPunjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 30' 10'2001 in CWP No.129119 of lggg' whereunder the Division Bench has allo'uved the writ petition filed by the respondents and grantecl relief, as prayed' for' directing reinstatement of the responCent with full back wages and consequential benefits. Against the said judgment' the authorities preferred the above Appeal' and the Apex Court observed SINGHI as follrrvs :- -.....ifasacitizerttheemploaeeorapublic seruant got inuolued in a cnminal case and if after a ' (UOO+) I SuPreme Court Cases l2l

Initial conuiction by the trial court, lrc gets acquittal on appeal subsequentlg, the department cannot in anA manner be found fault with for hauing kept him out of seruice, since the law obliges a person conuicted of an offence to be so kept out and not to be retained in seruice. Consequently, the reasons giuen in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are not onlg conuincing but are in corusonance with reasonableness as uell. Though exception taken to that part of the order directing reinstatement cannot be sustained and the .respondent has to be reinstated in seruice, for the reason that the earlier disclmrge u)as on account of those ciminal proceedings and conuictioru only, the appellants are uell within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent for the period he uas not irt seruice. The appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the peiod for which theg could not auail of tlrc seruices of the respondent. The High Court, in our uiew, committed a graue error, in allouing-back-wages also, uithout aduerting to all such releuant aspects and considerations. Consequently, the order of the High Court insofar as it directed payment of back wages is liable to be and is hereby set aside. The respondent will be entitled to back uages from the date of acquittal and except for the purpose of denying the respondent actual payment of back wageq that peiod also will be counted as period of seruice, uithout any break.....". /

12. In tlr.e case at hand' the petitioner was acquitted in S.C.No.2C' of 2O06 on 27 'O2'2OOT and S'C'No'328 of 2011 on 30- 1 1 '2012' The appellate authority' i'"'' the Government, issued impugned G'O'Rt'N o'973 on

18. 1 1.2015, white setting aside the punishment of dismissa.l from service' treated the period of suspenslon and out of employment as "not on d'uty"' which is incorrect the above observation of the APex Court and i11e5',al as Per

13. In support of his contentions' learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relied upon the judgme'nt of the Apex Court in STATE Of I'[/ES T BENGAL ANDO'ffIERS Vs' MITUL KUIIIAR JANA2 In the said case' the appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of JudiczttureatCalcutta,dated|6.|2.2010,passedin..WPST No.6o,J of 2o10,, filed by respondent Mitul Kumar Jana' The Fiigh Court by the said judgment allowed the writ and set ar;ide, the order dated 23'11'2010 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal and directed appellant No'2 '2023 (14) scc 719

l0 i.e., Superintendent of Police, to appoint the respondent as a constable in the West Bengal Police Force.

14. [n the above case, the applicant, at the time of submission of the application for the post of constable, suppressed the material information regarding his involvement in a pending criminal case. During police verification, the authorities came to know that the applicant was involved in a criminal case, and he had suppressed the material information. Moreover, the applicant has not mentioned in his application that he was acquitted in the criminal case. In the said circumstances, the Apex Court disposed of the above case.

15. In the case at hand, the issue is completely different and in both criminal cases, the petitioner was acquitted, and no appeal was preferred by the respondent authorities against the acquittal judgments. Hence, the above case is not applicable to the present case.

16. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of the Apex /

ll Court in BALDEV SIAIGI{ Vs' UMON OF INDIA AND OTI{ERS3' In the sai<l case' the appellant was convicted by the trial court- However' his appeal was accepted by the High Court, anC he was acquitted vid'e order dated 26'O3'L992' The appellant alleged that he was released from jail on O4.O4-lg92and that he reported to his unit on the next day along with a copy of the judgment' He further stated that he was reinstated on the strength of such acquittal and continued' in service' but his pay and allowances were not fixei or released' On 30'O g'lgg3' he was discharged from the service' He claimed to have completed the requisil-eperiodofservicefromthedateofenrolmenttothe, date of d'ischarge' and' to be entitled to the release of arrear:; of salary for the period from 3O'O3' 1987 to 30.09'1993' as well as pension for the subsequent periods' [t rn'as further observed that when the appellant had

17. not rt:ported for duty despite the issue letters and' also after sending a person of as many as nlne to his home, it is felt t (zoos) 8 SuPreme Court Cases 747

l2 that the case does not warrant consideration for r egularizati on by ob tain in g government sanction.

18. It was further observed that inspite of several attempts the writ petitioner refused to join duty, and his conduct established a clear motive for only getting arrears of salary and pension. It was held that he r*'as to be entitled to salary for the period for which the writ petitioner actuall-v rendered service and not for earlier periods.

19. In the said. circumstances, the Apex Court held that the order of the High court does not suffer from any infirmity and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Ho'ut ever, the present case is altogether different, as the petitioner herein had already joined service, and he contends that he \ ras illegally implicated in the criminal cases. The trial court itself acquittecl the petitioner in both cases. In the present case, no letters were issued to the petitioner calling upon him to join duty, nor did the authorities visit the petitioner's house. Hence, the said case is not applicable to the case on hand. t"\ 'i

- l3

20. [n view of the foregoing discussion and as per the dictum laid by the Hon',ble Apex court in JAIPAL SIMI{',s case (1 supra), this Court is of the considered view that the Governrnent, while setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service, ought to have granted back wages to the lletitioner, at least to some extent, from the date of passing of the acquittal judgments till the date of passing of the impugned order. Therefore, this court is inclined to grant 25o/o of back wages from 27.O2.2OO7 to 29.11.2012 and 50(/o of back wages from 30.1 1.2012 to 18.11.2015 i.e., from th e dates of passing the judgments in s.c.No.2o of 2006 aed S.C.No.328 of 2O1 1 till the date of passing the impugned order. 2l . Hence, the respondent authorities are directed to pay 250r1t of back wages from 27.02.2007 to 29.11.2012 and 500/o berck wages from 30.11.20t2 to 18.11.2015, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this orcter. II

t4 t\ 22.. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. . ', Pending,itiscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand SD/- C.DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// OFFICER To One fair coPY to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAV RAJESHWAR RAO (For His LordshiP's Kind Perusal)

1. 11 L.R. CoPies.

2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High court Buildings, HYderabad.

4. The Principal Secretary, HgT". (ser.ll) Department, State of Telangana' ' i"6ngini'state Secretiriat, Hyderabad'

5. The Addl. Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad'

6. TheCommissionerofPolice,Cyberabad,Hyderabad,T.S.

g. Two ccs to GP for services-1, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

9. Two CD CoPies tVIP closed \ 1c

HIGH COURT DATED 11210212026 THE S 1 9 F[8 20/8 * * o -;tf! WP.No.34440 ot 2017 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b