ORDER : Seeking to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in issuing Memo No.29064/Vig.II(2)/2025, Revenue (Vigilance.II) Department, dated 14.12.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Fundamental Rule 54 1B and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s suspension period from 14.06.2005 to 31.12.2007 as on duty with all consequential benefits, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2) Heard Sri B.Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to erstwhile combined State Secretariat Service and while he was working as Assistant Section Officer, he was deputed to Prohibition and Excise Department as Prohibition and Excise Inspector in the year 1992. Further, as the lien continued, his seniority was continued in the Department and as per Rules he was considered and promoted to the cadre of Section Officer vide Office Order dated 20.05.2005 along with all other eligible incumbents who were deputed to various departments from Secretariat. Further, during the interlude of communicating the promotion order, the petitioner was implicated in a false ACB case on 14.06.2005, for which, the ACB officials have registered FIR No.11-ACB-HR/2005 against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension vide proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad Division, in Cr.No.A3/2612/2005, dated 23.06.2005. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that his promotion was cancelled due to presence of disciplinary case, but any order as such has not been communicated to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was acquitted in the ACB case vide judgment dated 21.06.2012 in C.C. No.9 of 2006 rendered by the I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against which, ACB has preferred a criminal appeal vide Crl.A.No.1155/2012 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 11.11.2018 confirming the judgment dated 21.06.2012. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted representations dated 06.03.2023, 23.03.2023, 24.03.2023 and 24.07.2023 to respondent No.1 for regularization of his suspension period from 14.06.2005 to 31.12.2007 under FR- 54(3). As no action has been taken thereon by respondent No.1, petitioner has filed W.P. No.24320 of 2023 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2023 directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As no action has been taken thereon by respondent No.1, petitioner has filed W.P. No.24320 of 2023 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2023 directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As the respondents have failed to comply the said order, petitioner had preferred Contempt Case No.2507 of 2023 wherein this Court has issued the show cause notice dated 17.11.2023 to respondent No.1 to appear on 15.12.2023 either in person or through representative. At that juncture, respondent No.1 in a hurried manner only to avoid contempt proceedings, without application of mind, has issued the Memo No.29064/Vig.II(2)/2005, Revenue (Vigilance.II) Department, dated 14.12.2023, directing for release of pension and pensionary benefits. 3.1) Learned counsel has further submitted that from the known sources, the petitionr came to know that no SLP has been filed as on the date of issuance of impugned Government Memo. Further, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 in C.C. No.2507 of 2023 on 18.01.2024 bringing the calumny and malafide intention of respondent No.1 in creating proxy SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and requested the Court not to close the Contempt Case and requested to punish the respondents in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the impugned Memo dated 14.12.2023 would reveal that the Director General, ACB, vide letter dated 19.01.2023 has sought permission of the Government for filing SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.1155 of 2012 vide judgment dated 11.11.2022. However, no sanction is awarded. Hence, the action of the respondents in passing the impugned Memo dated 14.12.2023 rejecting to regularize the suspension period of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned memo dated 14.12.2023. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on: a) Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2008) 1 SCC 728 b) Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2594 ; and c) Order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) Diary No.17577 of 2024. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on: a) Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2008) 1 SCC 728 b) Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2594 ; and c) Order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) Diary No.17577 of 2024. 4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that while the petitioner was working as Prohibition & Excise Inspector, SHO Amangal, Mahbubnagar District, he was trapped by ACB on 14.06.2025 on the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe and on the same day he was placed under suspension. During the pendency of ACB case, he was retired from service on 31.07.2013. However, the petitioner was tried in a Court of law and was acquitted vide judgment dated 21.06.2012 in C.C. No.9 of 2006 by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases. Questioning the same, the Government has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1155 of 2012 before this Hon’ble Court and vide judgment dated 11.11.2018 the said appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment dated 21.06.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a representation before respondent No.1 seeking regularization of suspension period from 14.06.2005 to 31.12.2007 treating the said period as on duty under FR 54(3). While his representation was under examination, petitioner has filed W.P. No.24320 of 2023 wherein this Hon’ble Court has directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereof. In compliance of the said direction, respondent No.1 has considered the matter and passed the impugned orders dated 14.12.2023 deciding to release full pension and all pensionary benefits due to the petitioner and to treat his absence period as any kind of admissible leave, pending SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the ACB has filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.04.2024 vide e-filing No.EC-SCIN01-13673-2024. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no SLP is filed is incorrect. It is further submitted that as per FR 54-B(1)(a) & (b), the competent authority shall consider each case on its own merits and make a specific order whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no SLP is filed is incorrect. It is further submitted that as per FR 54-B(1)(a) & (b), the competent authority shall consider each case on its own merits and make a specific order whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. Thus, each case has to be examined by the competent authority under the powers conferred by the above provision of law and it is not an automatic application in every case. Therefore, the respondents have examined the case of the petitioner and rightly taken a decision to treat the suspension period as any kind of admissible leave, which action of respondent No.1 is within the ambit of law. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on: a) RBI v. Bhopal Singh Pancal, AIR 1994 SC 552 ; and b) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. M.Prabhakar Rao, (2011) 8 SCC 155 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 6) A perusal of the record reveals that consequent upon registration of ACB case in crime No.11-ACB-HR/2005 dated 14.06.2005, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 14.06.2005 and he continued under suspension till 31.12.2007. Thereafter, he was retired from service on 31.07.2013. After filing of charge sheet, the case was numbered as CC No.9/2006 on the file of I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. After due trial, the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case vide judgment dated 21.06.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the Department has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1155/2012 before this Court and the said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.11.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation with a request to treat the suspension period from 14.06.2005 to 31.07.2007 as on duty as per FR 54(3). But, on consideration of the said representation, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 directing respondent No.3 to release full pension and other pensionary benefits due to the petitioner duly considering the absence as any kind of admissible leave pending SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if any other cases are pending against him. 7) For better appreciation of the matter, relevant portion of the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 is extracted hereunder: “7. 7) For better appreciation of the matter, relevant portion of the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 is extracted hereunder: “7. Government, after careful consideration of the matter and in compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, Dt:01.09.2023 in W.P.No.24320 of 2023 have decided to release full pension and all other pensionary benefits due to Sri C.Prasad, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Amangal, Mahaboobnagar District, and accordingly, direct the Director, Prohibition & Excise, Telangana State, Hyderabad to release full pension and all other pensionery benefits due to Sri C.Prasad, Prohibition & Excise Inspector (Regd.) duly treating the absence period as any kind of admissible leave, pending SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, if no other cases are pending against him.” 8) A perusal of the above discloses that no reasons are assigned by respondent No.1 for taking such decision/before coming to the conclusion to treat the period of suspension as any kind of admissible leave. 9) Here, it is relevant to refer to FR 54-B which reads as under: “F.R.54-B. (3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended: Provided that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant, it may after giving him an opportunity to make his representation..” 10) Further, it is also necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Rao’s case (referred supra) wherein it is held as under: “15. Sub-rule (3) of FR 54-B does not state that in case of acquittal in criminal proceedings the employee is entitled to his salary and allowances for the period of suspension. Sub-rule (3) of FR 54-B also does not state that in such case of acquittal the employee would be entitled to his salary and allowances for the period of suspension unless the charge of misconduct against him is proved in the disciplinary proceedings. Sub-rule (3) of FR 54-B also does not state that in such case of acquittal the employee would be entitled to his salary and allowances for the period of suspension unless the charge of misconduct against him is proved in the disciplinary proceedings. Sub-rule (3) of FR 54-B vests power in the competent authority to order that the employee will be paid the full pay and allowances for the period of suspension if it is of the opinion that the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustified. Hence, even where the employee is acquitted of the charges in the criminal trial for lack of evidence or otherwise, it is for the competent authority to form its opinion whether the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustified and so long as such opinion of the competent authority was a possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the materials before it, such opinion of the competent authority would not be interfered with by the Tribunal or the Court.” 11) From the above, it is clear that where the employee is acquitted of the charges in the criminal trial for lack of evidence or otherwise, the regularization of the suspension period is not automatic and it is for the competent authority to form an opinion whether the suspension period was wholly unjustified. 12) Here, it is also relevant to refer to the findings given by the trial Judge in C.C. No.9 of 2006 in its judgment dated 21.06.2012: “38. On a careful evaluation of these facts and on the synthesis of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed in placing cogent, convincing, reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence to bring home the guilt of the AO for the offences under sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, these three points are answered in favour of the AO and as against the prosecution.” 13) A perusal of the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 does not disclose as to on what basis respondent No.1 has concluded for treating the suspension period of the petitioner as any kind of admissible leave and absolutely no reasons are forthcoming for holding that the petitioner is not entitled for treating his suspension period as on duty. 14) Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is appropriate to direct the respondents to reconsider the issue strictly in terms of FR 54 (B) by duly taking into consideration the observations made in the judgment dated 21.06.2012 in C.C. No.9/2006 rendered by the I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and pass appropriate orders, without reference to the impugned order dated 14.12.2023, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate thereof to the petitioner. It is made clear that any decision so taken by the respondents shall be subject to the outcome of the SLP filed by the respondents on 20.04.2024 vide e-filing No.EC-SCIN01-13673-2024. 15) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.