M SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to declare G.O.Rt. No.1616 Revenue (Endts.III) Department, dated 9-12-1987 and the proceedings dated 25-4-1987 of the Executive Officer, Tirupathi imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect exclusive of the period spent on leave duly treating the period of absence as leave to which he is eligible, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Shroff in the year 1966. On a charge levelled against him that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.104/-, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. On a consideration of the explanation submitted to the said charge, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 15-2-1980. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Managing Committee, which was ultimately rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition i.e., W.P. No.16092/1984 on various grounds. The same was allowed, and this Court, directed the 2nd respondent to take up the appeal of the petitioner once again and award punishment that is commensurate with the offence that was proved against him. The learned Judge, however, did not intervene on the merits of the cha rge. Thereafter, the appeal was taken up by the 1st (sic. 2nd) respondent and by the impugned proceedings, he (sic. it) modified the punishment imposed on the petitioner, to the following effect:

(3.) The main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is mat me petitioner was removed from service on 15-2-1980 and was reinstated into service on 16-5-1987, therefore he is entitled for pay and allowances for the said period. In addition, it is submitted that, the petitioner is also entitled for the increments during the said period. Therefore, the stoppage of increments for the period of 2 years should have been given effect to during the period i.e., 15-2-1980 to 16-5-1987, which is treated as leave period. If so, he would be entitled for the increments from 1982 to 1987 and the pay fixation should be done accordingly on reinstatement. The respondents have not taken any action for fixation of pay on his reinstatement taking into consideration the period which was treated as leave. In support of his contention, the petitioner relied on F.R. 54 of the A.P. Fundamental Rules, which also governs the T.T.D. Services.