The Dist.Education Officer, And 2 Others, v. M.Hemalatha, And Another,

[ 3318 J H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILT AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA.'ESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 27895 OF 2015 Between:

1. The Dist.Education Officer, Karimnagar District

2. The Director of School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad.

3. The State of Telangana, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad rep. by its Principal Secretary.

AND -..PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS lN O.A.No. 340912012

1. M.Hemalatha, D/o Lingaiah, SGf , ZPHS Velgonda, Present working as SGT P.S. Anthargam, Mandal Jagtial, Karimnqggl Q!s!dct. - - .. RESPONOENT/APPLICANT IN O.A.NO. 340912012

2. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Rep by lts Registrar' Purani Haveli' Hvderabad'

...RE.,.NDENTS/RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and to call for records related to order of Honble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated- 11.03.2014 in O.A.1"1o.3409 12012 and quash or set aside the same l.A. NO: 2OF 201s(WPMP. NO: 36200 OF 2015 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dt.11-03-2014 passed in O.A.No.3409 of 2012, on the file of the Hon'ble AP Adminstrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pending disposal of the WP.

Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRl. M. RAMGOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HOIT'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAP'U RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.27895 OF 2015 ORI)ER:per the Horl'ble Si Justie Abhinand Kumar Shauili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 11.03.2014, passed in O.A.No.34O9 of 2Ol2 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'the TribunalJ.

2.

Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners and Sri M. Ram Gopa-l Rao, Iearned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

3.

L,earned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners had contended that the respondent No.1 was working as Secondar5r Grade Teacher. She was involved in a criminal case urde S.T.C.No.141 of 2OO9 on the hle of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial. The allegation against the respondent No.l in the said case is that she attended the school half-an-hour late on 2O.O4.2OO9 and when the Headmistress of the School told her not to sign the attendance register, she got violent and beat tJle Headmistress in the presence of students. The disciplinary authority, construed the same as misconduct and

AKS,J & R.RN,, W.P.No.27E95 of 2Ol5 placed the respondent No.l under suspension on 23.O4.2OO9. However, the suspension order was revoked on 28.06.2009. Though the respondent No.l was acquitted by the comPetent Criminal Court vide judgment, dated 15.O4.2011, the disciplinary authority has not regulated the suspension period. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.l has approached the Tribunal by filing the subject O.A.No.34O9 of 2Ol2 and pursuant to the interim order, dated 27.04.2012, passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners have treated the suspension period as 'eligibl'e leave'. Thereafter, the Tribunal , uide impugned order, dated 11.03.2014, was pleased to dispose of the subject O.A. in favour of the respondent No.1 and directed the petitioners to treat the suspension period as 'on du$' for all purposes with all consequential benehts, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order, dated 11.03.2014, passed by the Tribunal and allow the Writ Petition.

4.

On the other hand, Iearned counsel for the respondent No. 1 had contended that the issue whether the suspension period can be treated as bn duty' or not, more so, when no punishment was I

AKS,J & RRN,J W P.No.27895 of20l5 imposed, was considered by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1280 of 2013, dated2l.O2.2O13, and following the said order, dated 21.O2.2013, the Tribunal was pleased to dispose of the subject O.A' in favour of the respondent No.1. The petitioners have not challenged the order, dated 21.O2.2O13, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1280 of 2013 and more so, when no punishment was imposed on the respondent No.1, the competent authority could not have treated the suspension period as 'eligible leave'. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the subject O.A. in favour of the respondent No.l. Further, the suspension is only for a period of two months and the financial stake is also very less. If the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is interfered, then the respondent No. 1 would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is \ - liable to be dismissed.

5.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made ) l by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that the I Tribunal was justified in allowing the subject O.A. in favour of the respondent No.1 by following the order, dated 21.O2.2013, passed in O.A.No. 128O of 2013. The issue involved in the present case is with regard to regularising the suspension period of two (2) l, I I i

AKS.J & RRN.- W.P.No.27895 of 2015 months. Admittedly no punishment was imposed on the respondent No. l. As the peLitioners have already paid 50% of the salary to the respondent No.l as subsistence allowance and the only issue is with regard to pa1ment of remaining 5O% of the salary to the respondent No. 1, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, dated 11'03'2014' passed by the Tribunal at this point of time since the suspension period can be treated as 'on dutY'.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed' There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTAUI. REG]STRAR //TRUE COPY/I W SECTION OFFICER To,

1. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court for the State of Telangana,at Hyderabad [OUT]

2. Ohe CC to SRl. M. RAMGOPAL RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies BM GJPw

t HIGH COURT DATED:1310712023 >?

l9 .I .s s c CA \ /:r,ll i. ,/, <t/ Hl)lH.1 WP.No.27895 of 2015

ORDER

i i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS !

Gr"ffrt ffi"