Telangana High Court
B. Kista Reddy , B. Krishna Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 9 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.24367 of 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“… declaring that the petitioner is entitled to have his suspension
period from 27.07.1988 to 25.09.2001 as on duty for all purposes
including pay, increments, arrears of pay and pension duly re-fixing
petitioner’s pay and pension in terms of PRC 2005 and 2010 together
with an interest of 18% per annum from the date of petitioner’s
retirement from service i.e., 30.9.2011 to the date on which actual
payment was made and further be notionally promoted as Head
Constable (Civil) on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits
duly holding the action of the respondents in effecting delayed payment
of pensionary and retirement benefits and further treating the
suspension period of thirteen (13) years as not on duty on the basis of
external dictation vide impugned D.O.No.6895 (No.L&O/B9/1950/2014)
dated 28.11.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent and the Memo
no.12830/Ser.II/A1/2011 dated 3.9.2014 issued by 1st respondent and
thereby denying promotion without any justification as being arbitrary,
illegal, discriminatory and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution
of India ….”
2) Brief facts of the case are as under:
The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable (Civil) in
Hyderabad City Police during the year 1977. While so, the
petitioner was arrested and released on bail along with others in
connection with three criminal cases. Hence, he was placed under
suspension vide proceedings dated 22.07.1988 by respondent No.3
and subsequently he was reinstated into service vide proceedings
dated 25.09.2001 issued by respondent No.3. Further, the
suspension of the petitioner was never reviewed and he was
-2- PK, J
wp_24367_2018continued under prolonged suspension for more than 13 years.
Thereafter, vide judgment dated 11.08.2004 in C.C. Nos.360, 361
and 362 of 1993, the petitioner was acquitted by the
IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in all the criminal cases.
Thereafter, the petitioner was retired from service on 30.09.2011
on attaining the age of superannuation and by the said time, the
petitioner was not under currency of any departmental or criminal
proceedings and the petitioner was not sanctioned full retirement
and pensionery benefits and was sanctioned only anticipatory
pension vide proceedings dated 20.10.2012 and gratuity in the
year 2015 and final payment was effected in the year 2017 i.e.
almost 6 years after his retirement. Thereafter, full pension was
sanctioned in the year 2015 and revised pension in the year 2017.
Pursuant to the series of representations submitted by the
petitioner seeking to regularize the period of suspension, the
Government vide Memo No.12830/Ser.II/A1/2011, dated
03.09.2014, has rejected the request of the petitioner and treated
the period of suspension of the petitioner as ‘not on duty’ without
assigning any reasons except stating that suspension is justified.
Though the petitioner filed a Review Petition challenging the order
dated 03.09.2014, till date no orders are passed thereon. Hence,
this Writ Petition.
-3- PK, J
wp_24367_2018
3) Heard Mr. V. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home)
appearing for the respondents.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even
after acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal cases, several of his
juniors were promoted as Head Constables (Civil) but the case of
the petitioner was overlooked for promotion without any
justification. Learned counsel has further submitted that treating
the suspension period of more than 13 years as not on duty
amounts to imposition of harsher punishment than imposing any
penalty contemplated under the Rules. The discretion conferred
upon the authorities should be exercised reasonably and rationally
but not arbitrarily. Further, by virtue of the decision taken by
respondent No.1, petitioner was denied increments for 13 years
and the same had a cascading effect on his pay and pension.
Learned counsel has further contended that though the co-accused
were given the benefit of treating the suspension period as on duty
for all purposes, the petitioner was singled out and the same
offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further
contended that as the respondents are responsible for delay in
sanctioning and paying pensionary benefits, petitioner is entitled
for interest @ 18% per annum for the date of retirement till actual
payment. Further, the petitioner was also denied the benefit of
-4- PK, J
wp_24367_2018
PRC 2005 and 2010, due to which, the petitioner is receiving a
meager pension of Rs.12,000/- while his counterparts are drawing
more than Rs.27,000/- per month. Petitioner was also denied
promotion without any justification while several of his juniors
were promoted to the next higher category. Therefore, the
petitioner is also entitled for notional promotion on par with his
juniors atleast from the date of his acquittal in criminal cases in
the year 2004. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to issue suitable
directions to the respondents and allow the writ petition. Reliance
has been placed on Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. 1.
5) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted
that while the petitioner was working in Traffic Compounding
Booth at Traffic Branch, Hyderabad, he misappropriated
Government money to the tune of Rs.2,41,040/- collected by way
of fines during the period from 14.10.1985 to 14.04.1987 for which
a case in crime No.142/1988 of CCS, DD, Hyderabad, was
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 468 and
420 of Indian Penal Code, wherein he was arrayed as A.1. In
connection with said criminal case, petitioner was arrested on
21.07.1988, remained in judicial custody till 30.07.1988 and later
released on bail. Subsequently, the case was transferred to CID on
25.03.1988 for further investigation. As such, the petitioner was
1 2013 (3) SCC 73
-5- PK, J
wp_24367_2018
placed under suspension vide office D.O.No.2006/88, dated
22.07.1988 and for every six months his suspension was reviewed
and decided to continue under suspension in view of gravity of
allegations. Learned Government Pleader has further submitted
that vide office order dated 10.05.1993, an oral enquiry was
ordered by appointing the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Chatrinaka Division, as Inquiry Authority. However, due to
revision of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 1991, the oral enquiry ordered was cancelled vide
office Memo dated 27.12.1995 and departmental proceedings could
not be initiated against the petitioner under the new Rules as the
material record was lying with CID. However, the petitioner was
released from suspension vide office order dated 25.09.2001
pending disciplinary action. Further, the petitioner was acquitted
from the criminal case in C.C. No.361/1993 vide judgment dated
11.08.2004 by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Subsequently, letter dated 24.08.2005 was addressed to the
Director General of Police, Hyderabad, seeking clarification
whether to drop further action as the delinquency is more than 17
years old. In reply, the Government vide Memo dated 20.06.2006
requested to send report as to the action taken against the official
prosecution witnesses who did not support the prosecution and
also to take action against the Investigating Officer for perfunctory
-6- PK, J
wp_24367_2018
investigation, due to which the case ended in acquittal.
Accordingly, letter dated 31.01.2008 was addressed to Addl.
Director General of Police, CID, AP, Hyderabad, to send report on
the action taken against the Investigating Officer. Further, a report
dated 14.02.2008 was also sent to the Government by mentioning
the details and names of officials who did not depose properly in
the Court due to which the case ended in acquittal and the orders
from the Government are awaited. Further, the Director General of
Police, A.P., Hyderabad, also addressed a letter vide Memo dated
08.04.2011 seeking to issue orders regularizing the suspension
period of the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation on
30.09.2011. As such, another letter dated 19.03.2012 was
addressed to the Director General of Police, AP, Hyderabad, to
regularize the suspension period of the petitioner. Thereafter, the
Government issued Memo dated 03.09.2014 while regularizing the
suspension period from 27.07.1988 to 25.09.2011 directed to treat
the said as not on duty. It is further submitted that since the
departmental proceedings were pending against the petitioner, his
case was not considered for promotion to the higher cadre.
Further, pursuant to the request of the petitioner for release of
consequential benefits on par with the co-accused, respondent
No.2 vide letter Rc.No.187/T2/2015, dated 06.11.2015, has
-7- PK, J
wp_24367_2018
informed respondent No.2 that earlier the Government vide Memo
No.12830/Ser.II/A1/2011, dated 03.09.2014, has requested to
treat the period of suspension of the petitioner as ‘not on duty’ in
terms of FR 54-b (7) and thereby requested respondent No.1 to
take necessary action in the matter. However, the orders are
awaited from respondent No.1. Therefore, the learned Government
Pleader prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the
respective counsel and perused the record.
7) As can be seen from the record, admittedly, vide Memo
No.12830/Ser.II/A1/2011, dated 03.09.2014, the period of
suspension of the petitioner from 27.07.1988 to 25.09.2011 was
regularized however said period was treated as not on duty.
Further, in the Review Application filed by the petitioner before
respondent No.1 on 08.07.2015 it was categorically pointed out
that in respect of co-accused, the suspension period was
regularized treating his period of suspension as on duty for all
purposes vide Proc.No.K.II(8) 35277/88(1), dated 04.09.2006,
issued by The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Hyderabad.
But, the counter is silent in this regard.
-8- PK, J
wp_24367_2018
8) In this backdrop, this Court deems it apt to refer to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav’s
case (referred supra) wherein it is held as under:
“12. The Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed;
even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been
found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish
discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved
in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be
maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should
not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-
delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The
Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which is
disproportionate, i.e., lesser punishment for serious offense and
stringent punishment for lesser offences.
13. The principle stated above is seen applied in few judgments of
this Court. The earliest one is Director General of Police and others v.
G.Dasayan (1998) 2 SCC 407, wherein one Dasayan, a Police Constable,
along with two other constables and one Head Constable were charged
for the same acts of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority exonerated
two other constables, but imposed the punishment of dismissal from
service on Dasayan and that of compulsory retirement on Head
Constable. This Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, substituted
the order of compulsory retirement in place of the order of dismissal
from service on Dasayan, applying the principle of parity in punishment
among co-delinquents. This Court held that it may, otherwise, violate
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In ShaileshkumarHarshadbhai
Shah Case, the workman was dismissed from service proved
misconduct. However, few other workmen, against whom there were
identical allegations, were allowed to avail of the benefit of voluntary
retirement scheme. In such circumstances, this Court directed that the
workman also be treated on the same footing and be given the benefit of
voluntary retirement from service from the month on which the others
were given the benefit.”
-9- PK, J
wp_24367_2018
9) Having regard to the fact that the Review Application filed by
the petitioner is already pending before respondent No.1 for
consideration since the year 2015, this Court is of the considered
view that it is appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to dispose of
the same within a fixed time frame.
10) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing
respondent No.1 to consider the Review Application filed by the
petitioner on 08.07.2015 in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav‘s case (referred supra) and
duly considering the submission of the petitioner that case of the
co-accused viz., K.Narayana Reddy was considered treating his
period of suspension as on duty for all purposes vide proceedings
of the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Hyderabad, in
Proc.No.K.II(8) 35277/88(1), dated 04.09.2006, and pass
appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, without reference to impugned
Memo dated 03.09.2014, and strictly in accordance with law and
duly affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
_____________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date : 09-06-2025
sur