APHC010169142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8793/2025 Between: Dr P Brahmananda Rao ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC FOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHA) 2.GP FOR SERVICES I 3.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following prayer: “to declare the action of the Respondents for not considering my representation dated 08.06.2024 for 2 CGR, J W.P. No.8793 of 2025 treating the period of my suspension i.e., from 03.03.2014 to 03.01.2018 as on duty and also for not dropping the Supplementary Charge No.l as bad, arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence and also FR 54(B)(III) and offends Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other orders” 2. Heard Smt.M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Services – I & II for the respondents 1 and 2 respectively and Smt.R.Sudha Rani, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. 3. (a) Petitioner while rendering service on deputation as Finance Controller of Rajiv Vidya Mission (Sarva Siksha Abhiyan), charge memo vide Rc.No.10898/B2/RVR/2012, dated 12.12.2012, was issued alleging that he involved in making contract appointments without prior approval and contrary to the rules. Petitioner submitted explanation refuting said charges. Later, petitioner also issued second charge memo dated 12.12.2013. After due enquiry, the enquiry officer has submitted enquiry report by letter dated 10.05.2024 holding that Articles – 1 and 2 were not proved and similarly, Supplementary Charge – 2 also was not proved, however, Supplementary Charge – 1 was held to be partially proved. In the interregnum, petitioner was 3 CGR, J W.P. No.8793 of 2025 placed under suspension on 03.03.2014 and later, came to be reinstated on 03.01.2018. (b) Simultaneously, Crime No.31 of 2014 also came to be registered for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 IPC, arraying petitioner as accused. The police after investigating into the offences have submitted final report and referred the matter to the criminal court stating as “lack of evidence” and as there was no protest, the prosecution came to be closed. (c) Petitioner also filed W.P. No.14895 of 2023 before this Court claiming service benefits besides treating the suspension period as on duty. This Court, by order dated 28.06.2023, disposed the said writ petition at the admission stage directing respondents to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months and subject to the same, to take appropriate action on the request of petitioner for grant of service benefits. Though the said period has elapsed and that the enquiry officer has submitted report dated 10.05.2024, holding that the articles of charges are not proved except for one Supplementary Charge being held to be proved in part, the proceedings are not concluded and on the other hand, the respondents are not paying the service benefits, therefore, 4 CGR, J W.P. No.8793 of 2025 1 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 260 = (2018) 4 ALD 477 (DB) petitioner has submitted representation dated 08.06.2024 to 4th respondent, it is stated to be pending consideration. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner, while drawing attention to FR 54(B)(III), would submit that petitioner is entitled to be released the service benefits and also has placed reliance on judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in V.Krishna Murthy v. State of A.P. and another1 and in particular has drawn attention to Paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment to buttress the argument that withholding of the benefits payable to petitioner is clearly arbitrary and contrary to Rule 54(B)(III). 5. Opposing the aforesaid submission, learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed on record written instructions dated 04.04.2025 submits that enquiry is still going on and as no final decision is taken, petitioner is not entitled to the prayer as sought for. 6. Having considered rival submissions, without going into merits of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose the present writ petition having regard to FR 54B(III) and also the ratio laid down in the judgment referred supra, by directing the 5 CGR, J W.P. No.8793 of 2025 4th respondent to consider the representation dated 08.06.2024 submitted by the petitioner claiming for retiremental benefits as prayed therein strictly in accordance with aforesaid provision and also considering the observations made in V.Krishna Murthy’s case and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 09.04.2025 SS