APHC010126772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6711/2025 Between: B Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SYAMSUNDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 2 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus to declare the impugned charge memo issued vide RC.No.11/Ser.III/2019 dated 17.02.2021 and consequential show cause notice issued vide RC.No.11/Ser.ll/2019 dated 17.06.2022 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of constitution of India, violative of Section 21(2) of APCA CCS Rules, 1991 contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions and set aside the same with a consequential direction to regularize the period of gap service from 01.09.2016 to 09.10.2019 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Heard Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II for respondents. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Economics on 19.01.2002 through proper selection. While working as Lecturer at PR Degree College, Kakinada, he was sent on deputation to Government Degree College, Yeleswaram, by proceedings dated 31.08.2016. The petitioner submitted representation dated 31.08.2016 to cancel the said deputation, as the same is not acceptable to him. He further submitted successive representations dated 02.09.2016 and 15.09.2016 to the respondents, which were not responded too. The 4th respondent by letter dated 14.09.2016, 3 addresses to 2nd respondent, informed that petitioner has not reported to duties. The respondents did not responded to petitioner’s representations and treated petitioner as absent at the place he was directed to report. He approached the Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission to redress grievance. The 3rd respondent submitted report. The petitioner expressed willingness to work on deputation. He was relieved from P.R. Government Degree College, Kakinada, with instructions to report at Government Degree College, Yeleswaram, East Godavari District. Later, the proceedings before the aforesaid commission came to be closed with a liberty to approach the Government. 4. The petitioner submitted representation dated 18.04.2018 and reported to 4th respondent, who later on directed the petitioner to report at Government Degree College, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District. The petitioner has reported to duty on 10.10.2019 and has been discharging duties there till now. When the petitioner has made a representation dated 17.12.2020 requesting the 2nd respondent to regularize the gap period of service from 01.09.2016 to 09.10.2019 and permit to draw regular increments and promotion fitment benefits, etc., he was issued charge memo dated 17.02.2021, with articles of charges, stating that petitioner indulged in subordination to higher authorities and absconded from duties, which amounted to violation of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The 4 petitioner has not submitted explanation to the same. In furtherance to said proceedings, Inquiry Officer came to be appointed, who after conducting inquiry submitted report dated 19.12.2021 holding that charges against the petitioner were proved. Based on the said report, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice dated 17.06.2022 proposing to impose major punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 22.06.2022. As there is no further intimation with respect to conclusion of proceedings, he submitted another representation dated 17.04.2023 to the 1st respondent. Inspite of the same, there is no response and disciplinary proceedings are not concluded as of now. As the disciplinary proceedings are unconcluded and kept pending for indefinite period, the petitioner preferred present writ petition to quash the charge memo and consequential show cause notice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though Inquiry Officer came to be appointed and inquiry was done, while issuing show cause notice dated 17.06.2022 copy of inquiry report was deliberately not furnished to petitioner, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and contravention of Rule 21(2) of APCS (CCA), Rules, 1991. He placed reliance on Union of India and others v. Mohammed Ramzan Khan1 at paragraph No.18: 1 (1991) 1 SCC 588 5 “…18. We make it clear that wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter..” 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents had placed on record written instructions dated 26.03.2025, as per which, it is stated that petitioner was not communicated with inquiry report, the relevant portion of instructions reads as under: “…Further, I submit that, while issuing show cause notice vide CCE’s Procs.Rc.No.11/Ser.III/Ser.II/2019, dated 17.06.2022 to Sri B.Srinivasa Rao, Lec. In Economics Inquiry Report was not communicated. However, the Charged office vide his explanation dated 22.06.2022 submitted his reply. No point of time the Charged Officer sought Inquiry Report…” 7. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, as it is settled law that providing inquiry report is pre-requisite for the disciplinary authority to proceed with further disciplinary proceedings and non furnishing of such inquiry report vitiates the entire inquiry, on the sole ground that the petitioner was not furnished with inquiry report, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, in following terms: “ (a) The 2nd respondent is directed to issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, enclosing a copy of inquiry report dated 19.12.2021, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6 (b) Thereafter, the petitioner is permitted to submit explanation within a period of four (04) weeks. (c) On such submission, the 2nd respondent is directed to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.” There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 26.03.2025 KBN 7 420 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6711/2025 Date: 26.03.2025 KBN