APHC010317982020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21036/2020 BETWEEN: 1. G VASUDEVA RAO, G. VASUDEVA RAO, S/o. GORLA CHINNA APPADU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: SECONDARY GRADE TEACHER, GOVERNMENT TRIBAL WELFARE ASHRAM HIGH SCHOOL, VENNELA VALASA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, T SEETHAMPETA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. PROJECT OFFICER, ITDA, SEETHAMPETA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, TRIBAL WELFARE, VIJAYAWADA. 4. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, PALAKONDA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. VABA YOGESWARA RAO, S/o. ASIRAYYA, JOINT SECRETARY TO AADIVASI SAMKSHEMA PARISHED, AGE. 35 YEARS, R/o. SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.6 IS IMPLEADED, AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 09.07.2026, PASSED I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 IN WP NO.21036 OF 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21036/2020 VASUDEVA RAO, G. VASUDEVA RAO, S/o. GORLA CHINNA APPADU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: SECONDARY GRADE TEACHER, GOVERNMENT TRIBAL WELFARE ASHRAM HIGH SCHOOL, VENNELA VALASA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TRIBAL WELFARE, SEETHAMPETA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. PROJECT OFFICER, ITDA, SEETHAMPETA, SRIKAKULAM COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, TRIBAL WELFARE, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, PALAKONDA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. VABA YOGESWARA RAO, S/o. ASIRAYYA, JOINT SECRETARY TO AADIVASI SAMKSHEMA PARISHED, AGE. SARAVAKOTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.6 IS IMPLEADED, AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 09.07.2026, PASSED I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 IN WP NO.21036 OF 2020. ...RESPONDENT(S): [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO VASUDEVA RAO, G. VASUDEVA RAO, S/o. GORLA CHINNA APPADU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: SECONDARY GRADE TEACHER, GOVERNMENT TRIBAL WELFARE ASHRAM HIGH SCHOOL, VENNELA VALASA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER RIBAL WELFARE, PROJECT OFFICER, ITDA, SEETHAMPETA, SRIKAKULAM COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, TRIBAL WELFARE, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, VABA YOGESWARA RAO, S/o. ASIRAYYA, JOINT SECRETARY TO AADIVASI SAMKSHEMA PARISHED, AGE. KOTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.6 IS IMPLEADED, AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 09.07.2026, PASSED I.A.NO.1 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 Mandamus, declaring the action of the first respondent in proceeding with the enquiry as is evident from the proceedings Rc.No.95/2020/L(TW) dated 11.9.2020 and Rc.No. 737/2020/DT/Dt/16-10-2020 issued by the 5th respondent on the self same charges on which earlier enquiry was conducted and charges were dropped vide enquiry report dated 17.4.2018 is as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law on the subject and therefore successive enquiry is bad and consequently hold that the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of LFL Headmaster with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 3. P SARASWATHI The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The Petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 30.12.1989, the probation was declared on 01.03.1993 and the petitioner was included at Sl.No.44 in the final seniority list. While so, Sri Vaba Yogeswara Rao, who is 6th unofficial respondent (herein after referred to as “6th respondent”), made complaint against the writ petitioner alleging that the petitioner has misused scholarship funds in Metric Hostel-I by entering wrong names. 2. Sri Vaba Yogeswara Rao filed I.A. No.1 of 2021 to implead him as party respondent to the W.P. No.21036 of 2020, on the ground that on the complaint given by him the respondents authorities have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, hence he is a proper and necessary party. This Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 has allowed the I.A. No.1 of 2026 in W.P. No.21036 of 2020, and permitted Sri Voba Yogeswara Rao, to come on record as party respondent No.6. The contention of the 6th respondent is that, although he made a complaint against the petitioner, however, ACB department diverted its investigation to individual and conducted enquiry other than the writ petitioner. Based on the report submitted by the ACB department, the respondent authorities conducted enquiry and concluded that the charges against the writ petitioner were not proved. Therefore, 6th respondent prays for a direction to conduct a fresh enquiry against the petitioner. 4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the complaint given by 6th respondent, an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Tribal Welfare Officer and the said enquiry officer submitted a report to the Project Officer, ITDA holding that the charges against the petitioner have not been proved. Despite the same, another enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for the very same allegations. And the 5th respondent was appointed as enquiry officer. The petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents in initiating 2nd enquiry challenged in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P. No.21036 of 2020 and obtained an order from proceeding with the 2nd enquiry. Despite, stay granted by this Court, enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and submitted report dated 31.12.2020. However, the disciplinary authority has not passed any order in pursuance of the said report. 4. The counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Director and Tribal Welfare Officer of the ITDA states that the initial inquiry found no prima facie case against the petitioner, and that the second inquiry must be concluded based on the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 31.12.2020. 5. The contention of the 6th respondent is that ACB department has diverted its investigation and submitted a report. Although the ACB department has submitted a report diverting the investigation, the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings and conducted 5 enquiry. The proceedings before the disciplinary authority and before the ACB authority is one and the same, is misconceived. According to the petitioner’s counsel, the disciplinary proceedings cannot possibly enquire into the charges of criminal conspiracy, fraud, cheating and cannot possibly award any punishment for those offences, which only a criminal Court can. 6. The 6th respondent has no locus to file a complaint against the petitioner to the respondents. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Prasad Vs Union of India1 in relation to the locus standi of persons seeking initiation of disciplinary proceedings, held that insofar as disciplinary proceedings are concerned, the matter essentially lies between the employer and the employee and that strangers have no locus standi to seek initiation of disciplinary proceeding and the relevant para is extracted: ‘In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a writ petition in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for misconduct on the part of the employee. This action is taken after a domestic inquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the 1 (2000) 9 SCC 313 6 constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings.” 7. Now, the respondents have conducted two enquiries. According to the first enquiry, the charges were not proved, the 2nd enquiry was conducted, however it was not concluded. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry and pass appropriate order following the due procedure, based on the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 31.12.2020. Subsequently, if it is found that the charges are not proven, the respondents are directed to deliver appropriate order granting notional promotion to the petitioner to the post of LFL Headmaster, with all consequential benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 03.09.2026 Harin 7 203 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 21036 of 2020 Date: 03-09-2026 Harin