APHC010286742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 15032/2025 Between: Meesala Ramesh Babu, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2 HCGR,J W.P.No.15032 of 2025 The Court made the following order: The present writ petition challenges proceedings in Rc.No.107/2024/EGS(FA.Dvrvls-Rnstlm/HR, dated 09.04.2025, issued by 2nd respondent, placing petitioner under temporary suspension as Field Assistant in Devarapalli Gram Panchayat in Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District, pending disciplinary action. 2. Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent No.1 and Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant at Devarapalli Gram Panchayat in Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District, in the year 2007. He was issued show cause notice dated 13.11.2024, on certain allegations and was called upon to submit explanation. Petitioner submitted explanation on 25.11.2024 refuting the same. However, the respondents later issued impugned proceedings dated 09.04.2025 placing him under suspension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when petitioner has already submitted explanation to the show cause notice, rather than concluding the inquiry, he has been placed under suspension by impugned proceedings, which is unwarranted. Even as per Clause 13(B)(5) of the Field Assistant Human Resource Police, the inquiry is supposed to be concluded within thirty days. Instead of 3 HCGR,J W.P.No.15032 of 2025 concluding the same, the respondents passed impugned suspension order, which is clearly illegal and arbitrary. 5. Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that after passing of impugned proceedings, the hearing was held on 16.04.2025, to which petitioner participated and the respondents are in the process of passing final orders. Therefore, he would urge to dispose of the writ petition fixing certain timelines. 6. In view of aforesaid submissions, and having regard to the fact that already the proceedings are at an advanced stage and only the orders are required to be passed, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate speaking orders, in pursuance to the ongoing inquiry, within a period of one week from today. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 24.06.2025 KBN