1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY'OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR • AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE jRAVI CHEEMALAPATI WP(PIL) NO: 80 OF 2024 Between: Muppavarapu Narayana Rao, S/o. (Late) Nageswara Rao, Aged about 53 "years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o.D.No. 26-176, Yenamalakuduru, YSR Tadigadapa Municipality, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, " Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal / Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 3. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Commissioner and Director, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Reginal Director, Municipal Administration Department, , Rajmundary. 6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, then West Godavari ' District now Eluru District. 7. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. /■ 8. The District Collector, then West Godavari District now Eluru District at Eluru. 9. Naathi Prakasa Rao, S/o. Krishna Murthy, Aged about 42 Years. Occ: Municipal Commissioner, YSR Tadigadapa Municipality, Penamalaluru Mandal, Krishna District. ... RESPONDENTS ifpf' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 Quo warranto, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.01 to 08 in placing Respondent. No.09/Unofficial Respondent deputation under Foreign Service while pending disciplinary action for his misappropriations of public funds and further allowing him to continue on deputation under Foreign Service beyond the maximum stipulated period of 5 years as per G.O.(P).No. 10, Fin & Pig (FW.FR.II) Department, dated 22-01-2993 read with G.O.Ms.No.2, Finance (FR.II) Department, dated 02-01-2010 on action for his to continue on as illegal] arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India violation of Foreign Service rules and regulations contemplated under G.O.(P).No.10 Fin & Pig (FW.FR.II) Department, dated 22-01-2993 read with G.O.Ms.No.2, Finance (FR.II) Department, dated 02-01-2010 and violation of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and consequentially direct Respondents 01 to 08 to take immediate action against 9th Respondent/Unofficial Respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 8 to take immediate action against Respondent Nos.9/Unofficial Respondent and deemed him to have resigned from the service and as per Clause- 5(i) G.O.Ms.No. 2, dt; 02-01-2010, Foreign service - Terms and conditions for deputation of Government Services. % lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the Copy of proceedings of Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Rt.No 1234, dt. 05.11.2018 by Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (E.V), G.O.Rt.No 1065, dt. 13.11.2018 by Municipal Administration & Urban Development and Lr.Roc.No.20024/282/2023/A1, dt.31.05.2023 by The Commissioner and Administration, Andhra Pradesh as additional material Director of Municipal papers. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PILLI SUNDEEP Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, 7 & 8: MRS. S PRANATHI, SPECIAL GP FOR STATE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI Y KOTESWARA RAO (SC FOR ZPPS, MPPS & GRAM PANCHAYAT) Counsel for the Respondent No.9: SRI SYAM SUNDER RAO The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010149592024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Bench Sr.No:-27 [3483] WP(PIL) NO: 80 of 2024 Muppavarapu Narayana Rao ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner; Advocates for Respondents; Mr. Pilli Sundeep Mrs. S. Pranathi, Id. Special GP for State, Mr. S. Syam Sunder Rao - R9 CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI : 22"'* January, 2025. DATE PC : The present petition has been filed purportedly in public interest seeking the issuance of writ of Quo Warranto challenging the order by virtue of which private respondent No.9 was sent on deputation on the ground that it violates Government Order bearing G.O.Ms.No.2, Finance (FR.II) Department, dated 02.01.2010, which envisages inter alia that ‘employees who are repatriated to the parent department for reasons of disciplinary action, they should not have considered for deputation till the disciplinary case is closed and the currency of punishment is completed.’ 2. The petitioner alleges that respondent No.9 was placed under suspension by respondent No.4 - Commissioner & Director, Municipal <# HCJ & RCJ WP(PIL)_80_2024 Administration & Urban Development Department, who had subsequently revoked the order of suspension and that till today no disciplinary action was taken against the said respondent. 3. If the disciplinary action has not at all been initiated against respondent No.9, then the Government Order relied upon by the petitioner would not come into operation as there would be no question of closure of the disciplinary case against the said respondent. In any case, a writ of Quo Warranto may not lie against the order of appointment, unless, the said appointment was found to be in contravention of statutory rules. 4. Reference in this regard can be made to a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of [2006 (11) SCC 731] B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn., wherein it was held; 70. In the instant case, there is no violation of statutory provision and, therefore, in our view, a writ of quo warranto does not lie. If there be any doubt, it has to be resolved in favour of upholding the appointment. 71. In Statesman (P) Ltd. v. H.R. Deb [(1968) 3 SCR 614 : AIR 1968 SC 1495] Hidyatullah, C.J., speaking for the Constitution Bench indicated: (SCR p. 621 F) “The High Court in a quo warranto proceeding should be slow to pronounce upon the matter unless there is a clear infringement of the law. fW 3 HCJ & RCJ WP(PIL)_80_2024 Be that as it may, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition 5. (PIL) and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/. A. ViJAYA BABU assistant registrar SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// / To, 1r One CC to Sri Pilli Sundeep, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri S Syam Sunder Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Mrs. S Pranathi, Special GP for State, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. One CC to Sri Y Koteswara Rao, SC for ZPPs, MPPs & Gram Panchayat, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Three CD Copies TF ^ • HIGH COURT DATED:22/01/2025 ORDER WP(PIL).No.80 of 2024 DISMISSING THE W.P.(PIL), WITHOUT COSTS