APHC010335782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 17033 OF 2025 Between: P V V S MURTHY, S/o P. Harinadh Baba Aged about 59 years, Occ Regional Director of Municipal Administration, O/o the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration Andhra Pradesh, Prime Hillcrest Vaddeswaram Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration Andhra Pradesh, Prime Hillcrest, Vaddeswaram, Guntur District 3. The Additional Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) (Inquiry Officer), Vijayawada NTR District. 1. MA and UD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi State of ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Rt.No.824, MA and UD Department Dated 16.10.2024 well as the Memo No. 1213965A/ig.lll/2013 dated 28.04.2025 of the 1st respondent as void, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to the Enquiry officer's report and disagreeing the same illegally contrary to the C.C and A Rules and set aside the consequential benefits and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi same with all Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the G.O.Rt.No.824. Department Dated: 16.10.2024 as well Memo the MA&UD theas No. 1213965A/ig. 111/2013 dated 28.04.2025 of the 1st respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S JAGADISH Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.3: M/s S. PRANATHI ( SC FOR APCRDA) The Court made the following order: APHC010335782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] 0 WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 17033/2025 Between: 1.P VV S MURTHY, S/0 P. HARINADH BABA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ANDHRA PRADESH, PRIME HILLCREST, VADDESWARAM GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 0/0 THE COMMISSIONER AND ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MA AND UD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PRIME HILLCREST, VADDESWARAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, ANDHRA PRADESH CAPITAL REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (APCRDA) (INQUIRY OFFICER), VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more praying 2 HCGR.J W.P.No.17032 of 2025 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Rt.No.824, MA and UD Department Dated 16.10.2024 well as the Memo No. 1213965A/ig.lll/2013 dated 28.04.2025 of the 1st respondent as void, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary the Enquiry officer's report and disagreeing the same illegally contrary to the C.C and A Rules and set aside the same with all consequential benefits and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the G.O.Rt.No.824. Department Dated; 16.10.2024 as well Memo the MA&UD the as No.1213965A/ig.111/2013 dated 28.04.2025 of the 1®' respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S JAGADISH Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR SERVICES 1 to HCGR,J W.P.No.17033 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition assails G.O.Rt.No.824, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (VIG.III) Department, Dated 16.10.2024, as confirmed by way of Memo No.1213965A/ig.lli/2013 dated 28.04.2025, passed by the 1 respondent, imposing punishment of withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect on petitioner, to be illegal and contrary. 2. Petitioner worked as Municipal Commissioner at Proddutur during the period of 2006-2009. Based on vigilance report of the year 2013, which alleged that he was not diligent in discharging his duties and unauthorized constructions being raised within the municipality, disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against him by issuing charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.676, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.lll-I) Department, dated 01.12.2021. After conducting inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted report dated 14.03.2023, holding that none of the charges were proved. However, the Government issued memo No.25680A/ig.lll-2/2013, dated 12.06.2023, disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and decided to proceed with the disciplinary action. Later, petitioner submitted explanation dated 19.08.2023. Ultimately, the 1®‘ respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.824, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (VIG.III) Department, dated 16.10.2024, holding 3. HCGR.J W.P. No. 17033 of 2025 that charges were proved and imposed punishment of withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. 4. Petitioner filed review under Rule 38 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), before the 1®‘ respondent, seeking review of the aforesaid order, on the ground that the incident had occurred during the period 2006-2009 and the vigilance report was of the year 2013, after much delay charge memo came to be issued in the year 2021, which is with abnormal delay. All the unauthorized structures were came to be regularized in pursuant to Government BPS scheme. Lastly, having regard to the nature of duties discharged by Municipal Commissioner, the responsibility for monitoring unauthorized constructions primarily lies with the Town Planning Officer and Subordinate staff. Therefore, the punishment imposed is clearly excessive. The Government has thereafter called for report from the 2 respondent, who submitted the report by proceedings dated certain observations, including that of recommendation to take a lenient view and also drop the action, as was done in similar case earlier. Despite the same, the 1 respondent issued impugned memo dated 28.04.2025, rejecting the review. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 5. nd 11.12.2024 with St 5 HCGRJ W.P.No.l7033of2025 6. Heard Sri S.Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though petitioner has specifically raised the aforementioned grounds in review, which clearly fall for examination and consideration within the parameters of Rule 38(a) (iii) and (v) of the Rules, the Government has summarily rejected the same by impugned memo, without considering the same in proper perspective and even nd examining the report dated 11.12.2024, called for from the 2 respondent. Therefore, he urged that the matter be remanded for reconsideration. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents, on the other hand, tried to sustain the impugned punishment order as well as the rejection of review. Rule 38(a) (iii) and (v) of the Rules reads as under: 9. “...38. Review of original orders passed by Government, in lieu of appeal: (a) Every member of a State Service, or a member of a Subordinate Service in whose case the Government have passed original orders, shall not be entitled to appeal but shall be entitled to make separately and in his own name, within a period of three months from the date on which the order was communicated to him, a petition to the Government for review of the order passed by them on any of the following grounds, namely. 6 HCGRJ W.P.No.l7033of2025 (iii)that the punishment is excessive or unjust; (v) that there is an evident error or omission in the order such as failure to apply the law of limitation or an error of procedure apparent on the face of record...” 10. The scope of review enumerated under Rule 38 of the Rules is limited to grounds setout therein, including sub-clauses (iii) and (v). Petitioner in review petition specifically pleaded the grounds as narrated above. However, the 1®' respondent while rejecting the review has not dealt with the same specifically, rather it is stated that review petitioner had not produced any new additional facts/material to warrant a review of the decision, which is not the case at all. Even the said order does not take into consideration the report dated nd 11.12.2024, submitted by the 2 respondent with certain observations. In particular, paragraph No.6 of the said report, reads as under: “...In this connection, I submit that, since the Town Planning Officials are primarily responsible as per the Accountability and Responsibilities fixed by the Government and considering the manifold functions attached to the Municipal Commissioner and also considering the regularization of the buildings under BPS, a lenient view may be taken and request of the individual may be considered, since in similar cases. Government have dropped action against Municipal Commissioners. Hence, I request the Government to consider his plea, on the grounds put forth by him...” In view of the same, this Court finds that the 1®‘ respondent, who is vested with review power, has not acted in consonance with the requirements of Rule 38 of the Rules. Consequently, the 11. 7 HCGRJ W.P.No.l7033of2025 non-consideration of the impugned review order suffers from relevant grounds raised. 12. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with following directions; (a) The 28.04.2025, is hereby set aside. Memo No.1213965A/ig.lll/2013, dated (b) The matter is remitted back to the 1 St respondent for reconsideration of review petition in accordance with Rule 38 of the Rules and in pursuance of the report dated 11.12.2024 issued by the 2"^^ respondent, and pass appropriate speaking orders, after providing due opportunity of hearing to petitioner. (c) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. as 13. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if stand closed. any, shall Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ^7^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, MA and UD 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, State of Andhra Pradesh, Prime Hillcrest, Vaddeswaram, Guntur District 3. The Additional Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) (Inquiry Officer), Vijayawada NTR District. 4. One CC to SRI. S JAGADISH, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I , High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. One CC to M/s. S. PRANATHI, JAGADISH, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies NM HIGH COURT DATED .09/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 17033 OF 2025 [ 01 SEP 2025 )% <9 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COT