V APHC010378832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) B THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 19577 OF 2025 Between: B Malleswar, S/o Subbaraidu, Aged 55 years Occ. SA (Suspended) O/o MPUPS Alamur(V) Panyam(M) Nandyala ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Veiagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of School Education, School Education Department, Venkatadri Towers, Mangalagiri, Guntur 3. The District Collector, Nandyal Nandyal District 4. The Regional Joint Director of School Education Department, Kadapa YSR Kadapa 5. The District Education Officer, Kurnool and Model Officer Kurnoi Nandyal, Nandyal District School Education and ...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 an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents , more / / particularly the 5th respondent, in issuing the suspension order vide Rc.No.453/A2/2025 dated 15.02.2025, placing the petitioner under suspension based on an unsubstantiated allegation, without conducting a proper enquiry, and failing to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the stipulated time prescribed under G.O. Ms. No. 91, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, and Proc. Rc. No. ESE02-13/61/2022- EST3-CSE, dated 19.03.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and against the principles of natural justice Consequently, direct the respondents to set aside the suspension order issued by the District Educational Officer, Kurnool, vide Rc.No.453/A2/2025, dated 15.02.2025, and to conduct a proper enquiry before takin^any further action, and to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith 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 operation of proceedings of 5th respondent vide Rc.No.453/A2/2025 dated 15.02.2025, by permjKfhe petitioner to discharge duties as School Assistant pending disposa|/m the above writ petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAMARTHY RATHNAKAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No: 19577 OF 2025 ORDER:- The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in issuing the suspension order vide Rc.No.453/A2/2025 dated 15.02.2025 and failing to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the time stipulated in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 GAD (Ser.C) Department dated 12.09.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to conclude the enquiry expeditiously. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: 2. The Petitioner is working as School Assistant at MPUPS Alamur Village, Panyam Mandal, Nandyala. While so, the 5*^ Respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.453/A2/2025, dated 15.02.2025 placing the Petitioner under suspension from service on the allegation that the Petitioner misbehaved with a girl child while discharging his duties at the school. The grievance of the Petitioner in filing the writ petition is that the Respondents issued the impugned proceedings of suspension without conducting any enquiry. The Respondents are legally required to conduct enquiry in a fair manner duly following the principles of natural justice before imposing any punishment on an employee. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022 submits that 4. the Government had framed comprehensive guidelines fixing definite time frame for expediting the process of disciplinary previous guidelines. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that i cases, the enquiry should be completed cases in supersession of the in simple within three months and in complicated cases, the enquiry should be and seeks for expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary completed within five to six months proceedings. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll would submit No.1 for appointment of that further action has been initiated by Respondent Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and due to certain administrative issues, there is delay, however, submitted that the enquiry would be completed as expeditiously as possible as mandated under the G.O.Ms.No.91 relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel and taking note of the submissions made by the Assistant Government Pleader, this Court is of the opinion that the Government had issued the comprehensive guidelines for departmental proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.91 conclusion of General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022 and clause 5 (ix) would be relevant for disposal of this case which reads as under; ‘IX. Government direct that in all simple cases the inquiry initiated against Government Servant shall be completed within three Departmental Officers months either by or Commissioner of Inquiries. In complicated cases, It shall be ensured that the Inquiry should be completed within five to six months. The Secretaries to Government shall review the progress of the inquiries ordered In all disciplinary cases and submit a note on the cases pending beyond the stipulated time to Chief Secretary to Government and also the Chief Minister. ’ 7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Respondent No.1 shall appoint an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer as required under APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 forthwith and shall ensure that the enquiry shall be concluded within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The Petitioner shall cooperate for expeditious conclusion of the enquiry. (iii) In the event, enquiry is not concluded within time specified, the Disciplinary Authority, as well as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer shall be answerable for the delay. (iv) No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHAR! assistant REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION officer 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, School Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of School Education, School Education Department, Venkatadri Towers, Mangalagiri, Guntur 3. The District Collector, Nandyal Nandyal District r Director of School Education, School Education 4. The Regional Joint Department, Kadapa YSR Kadapa 5. The District Education Officer, Kurnool and Model Officer Kurnool And Nandyal, Nandyal District 6. One CC to SRI PAMARTHY RATHNAKAR Advocate [OPUC] FOR SERVICES II High Court of Andhra Pradesh 7. Two CCs to GP [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies gsg HIGH COURT DATED: 31/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 19577 OF 2025 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS