Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14704 (AP)

MANUPUDI SRINIVAS v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/9778/2025 · 2025-04-28

Challa Gunaranjan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.9778 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following prayer: “to declare the action of the Respondents in continuing the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings dated 31/12/2024 of the 3rd Respondent is totally exfacie illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and void apart from contrary to the Hon’ble Apex Court orders and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order.” 2. Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services–II appearing for respondents. 3. Petitioner, who has been working as Mandal Educational Officer at Ramachandrapuram, has been alleged to have been involved in leakage of question papers, therefore, he has been impleaded in criminal case vide FIR. No.145/2024 at Cyber Crime Police Station, Vijayawada, for offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(2) and 318(4) of B.N.S.S. Act. In view of the same, petitioner came to be arrested on 29.12.2024 and released on bail on 04.01.2025. Petitioner was placed under suspension by 2 CGR, J W.P. No.9778 of 2025 3r d respondent on 31.12.2024. He has been issued charge memo dated 24.01.2025 framing articles of charge in line with the criminal case, for which petitioner submitted explanation on 05.02.2025 refuting the same. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as suspension order was passed on 24.01.2025, he has made representation on 25.03.2025 to revoke the same, which is stated to be pending with 3rd respondent. He further submits that even otherwise, respondents are obligated to review the suspension period within four months in terms of G.O.Ms.No.22, General Administration (Ser-C) Department, dated 29.02.2024. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents submit that the period prescribed for review is not yet complete and that the respondents would review the suspension period in terms of aforesaid G.O. once mandated period is likely to be over and further that, at any rate, since petitioner has submitted his representation, the same will be considered in accordance with law. 6. In view of aforesaid submissions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, with the consent of both counsels, this writ petition is disposed of directing 3rd respondent 3 CGR, J W.P. No.9778 of 2025 to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 25.03.2025 having regard to G.O.Ms.No.22, General Administration (Ser-C) Department, dated 29.02.2024, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by passing speaking order. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 28.04.2025 SS