APHC010285162024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 14347/2024 Between: Kanupuru Srinivasulu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DAGGUBATI RAMASWAMY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER The above writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide D.O.No.52/2024 C.No.1361/B4/2024 dated 22.01.2024 (Ex.P1), as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner while working as Head Constable at Udayagiri Police Station availed loan from 3rd respondent-society for construction of house in the year 2019. As per the scheme, installments will be automatically debited monthly from the salary account. The petitioner was suspended by proceedings vide DO.No.430/2020 C.No.663/A3/2020 dated 26.05.2020 (Ex.P2) by 4th respondent. The petitioner filed W.P.No.10731 of 2020 and an interim order was granted on 23.07.2020 permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the Department and further directed the Department to consider the same. The petitioner made a representation seeking reinstatement. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit, it was stated that petitioner was reinstated and thereafter again suspended on 31.01.2022. Subsequently, by proceedings vide D.No.549/2022 C.No.21/PR-A8/2020 dated 09.06.2022, the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner failed to repay the amount. The 4th respondent having waited for 2 years, issued the proceedings impugned, whereby the ordered recovery of installments from the salary of sureties. Hence, the writ petition. 3. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 4th respondent. It was contended, interalia, that the petitioner was appointed as Civil Police Constable on 20.08.1993. He was promoted was Head Constable on 08.02.2019 and thereafter removed from service on 09.06.2022 for exhibiting misconduct. The Andhra Pradesh Police Department has introduced ‘Bhadratha’ scheme, welfare measure, to the employees of A.P. Police with the approval of the Government vide Govt. Memo No.18- 850/Pol.A1/97-1 dated 28.02.1997 for providing loans for construction of houses. An amount of Rs.24,50,000/- was sanctioned on 10.07.2018 and the sanctioned amount was paid to the petitioner in 3 installments. The petitioner executed an agreement with 2 sureties viz., P.Malakondaiah, PC-2640 and P.V.Lakshmipathi, PC-2798. The petitioner made another application for sanction of additional loan of Rs.5,50,000/-. An amount of Rs.4,10,000/- was sanctioned. The petitioner executed supplementary agreement with 3 sureties viz., P.Malakondaiah, PC-2640, P.V.Lakshmipathi, PC-2798 and S.Vijaya Kumar, PC-2881. The petitioner paid monthly installments till December, 2021. Later, the petitioner was removed from service on 09.06.2022. Since the petitioner was removed from service, he is not eligible for any pension benefits such as leave encashment, gratuity, pension etc. b) As per the directions of the Secretary, Bhadratha, office of Director General of Police, A.P., Mangalagiri proceedings were initiated to recover the amount from the sureties and hence, issued the proceedings impugned. The petitioner approached District Legal Services Authority, Nellore vide PLC No.22 of 2024 and later, the same was closed and eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit by annexing certain representations. 5. Heard Sri Ramaswamy Reddy Daggubati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in writ petitioner as well as in reply. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in counter affidavit. 7. A perusal of the proceedings impugned (Ex.P1) issued by 4th respondent would indicate that an amount of Rs.9,444/- has to be recovered from each of the surety (3 in number) in 120 installments. The sureties against whom the recovery proceedings initiated did not choose to file writ petition. The petitioner filed the above writ petition. The affidavit does not disclose locus of the petitioner to challenge the proceedings impugned. 8. In fact, as narrated supra the petitioner was removed from service on 09.06.2022. The petitioner availed loan to a tune of Rs.28,60,000/- by executing agreement and supplementary agreement with 3 sureties. For the outstanding amount, as per the terms of agreement, 4th respondent initiated the proceedings, in pursuance of letter addressed by the Secretary, Bhadratha Scheme. At the most, the aggrieved party would be the surety but not the writ petitioner. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the proceedings impugned. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD