APHC010135262022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 27 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION N BETWEEN: 1. TALARI NARASANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VILLAGE REVENUE ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), PEDDA PENDEKAL VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ADONI MANDEL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 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 particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MA action of the respondent No. 4 in issuing impugned order in R.C.C. No. 481/2021, dated 30-08- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8517/2022 NARASANNA, S/o. LATE TALARI PEDDA ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VILLAGE REVENUE ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), PEDDA PENDEKAL VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, REP. BY ITS THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI, KURNOOL THE TAHSILDAR, ADONI MANDEL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 respondent No. 4 in issuing impugned order in R.C.C. No. -2021, keeping the petitioner (Village Revenue [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO . LATE TALARI PEDDA ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VILLAGE REVENUE ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), PEDDA PENDEKAL VILLAGE, ADONI ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE AMARAVATHI, REP. BY ITS THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI, KURNOOL THE TAHSILDAR, ADONI MANDEL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High issue a writ, order or direction more NDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondent No. 4 in issuing impugned order in R.C.C. No. 2021, keeping the petitioner (Village Revenue 2 Assistant) under suspension and further action of the respondents continuing the petitioner under Suspsension in violatin of Rule 44 of A.P. Village Revenue Assistant Service Rules, 2005, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and Violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently SET ASIDE the impugned order in R.C.C. No. 481/2021, dated 30-08-2021 passed by the 4th respondent and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief/s: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing impugned order in R.C.C. No.481/2021, dated 30.08.2021, keeping the petitioner (Village Revenue Assistant) under suspension and further action of the respondents continuing the petitioner under Suspension in violation of Rule 44 of A.P. Village Revenue Assistant Service Rules, 2005, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and Violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently SET ASIDE the impugned order in R.C.C. No.481/2021, dated 30.08.2021 passed by the 4th respondent and pass such other order or orders….” 2. The Petitioner herein who is the Village Revenue Assistant was placed under suspension on 30.08.2021 alleging that the petitioner is not attending duties properly. The said order was assailed in the present writ petition on the ground that the said order of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, in placing the petitioner under suspension, is contrary to the Rule 44 of A.P. Village Revenue Assistant Service Rules, 2005 and the proviso to the rule envisages that where a village servant has been suspended and investigation has not been completed or the action proposed to be taken in regard to him has 4 not been completed within a period of three months from the date of suspension, the village servant shall be deemed to have been reinstated to duty unless the authority which ordered such suspension obtains the orders of the next higher authority to continue the said village servant under suspension in public interest and issues an order continuing such suspension for a further period of three months. The order of the Collector shall be obtained if it is necessary to continue the village servant under suspension for a period exceeding six months. In no case such interim suspension be in force for a total period exceeding one year, except in those criminal cases are pending trial. In the present case, there are no criminal cases pending against the petitioner as per the record. 3. In the present case on hand, the petitioner was suspended on 30.08.2021, even after lapse of five years, the respondents have not completed the investigation and the incumbent can be suspended when there are grave charges. As seen from the impugned order, the allegation against the petitioner is that he is not attending duties properly, it is nor a grave charge and the petitioner cannot be in suspension more than one year pursuant to the said rule. 5 4. Viewed in any manner, the respondents cannot continue suspension proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India1 deprecated the practice of protracted suspension and repeated renewal and indicated that a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of suspension. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the following: Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/ disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the Memorandum of Charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his Department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge 1 (2015) 7 SCC 291 6 that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement. 5. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the rule referred supra, the respondents cannot continue the petitioner’s suspension for the period of more than one year. 6. Accordingly, the suspension order impugned is hereby revoked and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into services with continuity of services, as expeditiously as possible within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 7. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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: 27.07.2026 Harin 7 89 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 8517 of 2022 Date: 27-07-2026 Harin