RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records relating to and connected with the orders passed by the 3rd respondent - District Collector in issuing proceedings dated 04.08.2010, wherein the petitioner was warned to be more careful in future, and declare the same as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same and sought a consequential direction to direct the respondents to treat the suspension period from 28.06.2005 to 09.12.2009 as 'duty' as the respondents failed to discharge their statutory duties in not reviewing the suspension as provided under the Rules.

(2.) Heard Sri T.Vijay Hanuman Singh, counsel for the petitioner, and Government Pleader for Services-II.

(3.) It has been contended by the petitioner that while he was working as Panchayat Secretary, the respondents have placed him under suspension vide proceedings dated 28.06.2005 on the allegation that he has committed irregularities in implementing the NFFW programme. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority had conducted detailed enquiry and during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was reinstated into service by revoking the suspension orders on 09.12.2009. Subsequently, a regular enquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority i.e., District Collector issued proceedings, dated 04.08.2010, warning the petitioner to be more careful in future service. The grievance of the petitioner is that warning is not one of the enumerated punishments under Rule 9 of the AP CS (CCA) Rules and on the ground of the punishment of warning, the respondents have not regulated the suspension period as 'spent on duty' nor released the increments during the suspension period. Challenging the action of the respondents in not regularising the suspension period as 'spent on duty' in terms of Fundamental Rule 54-B and not releasing the increments during the suspension period, the present writ petition is filed.