APHC010421772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21596/2025 Between: Shaik Shamshuddin ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.21596 of 2025 O R D E R: In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the Proceedings dated 23.12.2024 issued vide ROC.No.76/2023, Pts.6 extending the suspension of the Petitioner for a further period of four months as illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.22 General Administration (Ser-C) Department dated 29.02.2024. 2. The Petitioner while working as a bill collector at Chodavaram Gram Panchayat was suspended from service on 21.03.2023 vide Proceedings dated 76/2023 Pts. 5. Thereafter, a Charge Memo was issued on 20.02.2024; however, the suspension was being continued. Thereupon, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.25750 of 2024 challenging the suspension proceedings and this Court disposed of the same vide Orders dated 20.11.2024 directing the Respondent No.3 to consider the case of the Petitioner for revocation of suspension order in terms of G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 29.02.2024. Pursuant thereto, the impugned Proceedings were passed extending the 3 suspension of the Petitioner for a further period of four months. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the period of suspension extended on 23.12.2024 was not further extended, but the Petitioner is not being permitted to discharge his duties at Chodavaram Gram Panchayat. 4. Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the suspension order was not further extended after the period prescribed in the impugned Order dated 23.12.2024. He further submits that appropriate orders would be passed by the Respondent Authorities after taking note of the gravity of the charge against the Petitioner. 5. Having heard the respective counsel, as the suspension Order dated 21.03.2023 has been extended from time to time, and as per the impugned suspension Order dated 23.12.2024, the period of suspension came to an end by March, 2025. In the absence of any extension of the suspension period within the time specified, no further extension can be issued by the Respondent Authorities and the contention of the learned 4 Assistant Government Pleader that further extension would be considered by the Respondent authorities cannot be sustained. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others v Dipak Mali 1 held at paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 as under: “10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant dates relating to suspension of the Respondent and when the Petitioner's case came up for review on 20th October, 2004, we are inclined to agree with the views expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, that having regard to the amended provisions of Sub- rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10, the review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order of suspension and as categorically provided under Sub- rule (7), the order of suspension made or deemed would not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days. 11. The case sought to be made out on behalf of the petitioner, Union of India as to the cause of delay in reviewing the Respondent's case, is not very convincing. Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, speaks of abatement of proceedings once an original application under the said Act was admitted. In this case, what is important is that by operation of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of suspension would not survive after the period of 90 days unless it was extended after review. Since admittedly the review had not been conducted within 90 days from the date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days, since neither was there any review nor extension within the said period of 90 days. Subsequent review and extension, in our view, could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension”. 1 (2010) 2 SCC 222 5 7. Therefore, in the absence of any suspension order existing against the Petitioner as on date, the Petitioner cannot be restrained from discharging his duties at Chodavaram Gram Panchayat. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondent Authorities to permit the Petitioner to discharge his duties as Bill Collector at Chodavaram Gram Panchayat. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 21.08.2025 eha 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21596/2025 Dt. 21.08.2025 eha