Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35737 (AP)

K SUDHARANI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/30000/2024 · 2025-01-23

Subba Reddy Satti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010573892024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 30000/2024 Between: K Sudharani ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAMARTHY RATHNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri P.Rathnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. Impugning the proceedings vide Proceedings No.2377919/B1/2024, dated 10.12.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent whereby the suspension of the petitioner was revoked and the petitioner is directed to take charge of the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tekkali, the above writ petition is filed. 2 3. The petitioner was selected as Assistant Public Prosecutor in the year 2008 and posted as Assistant Public Prosecutor at 1st ACM, Visakhapatnam in 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner worked as Assistant Public Prosecutor from 2012 to 2015 at Additional JFCM, Bobbili; From 14.08.2015 to 17.08.2020 worked as APP at II ACM-cum-Juvenile Court at Visakhapatnam and thereafter from 17.08.2020 till suspension i.e.20.05.2024 at JFCM, Ichapuram. In between 2021 to 2022 the petitioner also attached to JFCM, Bhimili for a certain period. The petitioner also worked as in-charge for ADM, Sompeta Court. 3. Be that as it may, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide Proceedings No.2377919/B1/2024, dated 20.05.2024. Impugning the said suspension proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14121 of 2024. By order dated 08.07.2024 the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent authorities to adhere to the procedure prescribed in G.O.MS.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.22 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 29.02.2024. The petitioner filed one more writ petition i.e., W.P.No.21884 of 2024 challenging the suspension proceedings dated 20.05.2024. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing the respondents to conclude the inquiry as per G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. The petitioner filed C.C.No.4252 of 2024 complaining about the violation of the order dated 08.07.2024 in W.P.No.14121 of 2024. 4. By proceedings impugned in the writ petition (Ex.P.2), the suspension of the petitioner was revoked. The petitioner is posted as Assistant Public Prosecutor, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation (Ex.P.3) to issue reposting orders to place her near Visakhapatnam City. Complaining non-disposal of the said representation, the present writ petition is filed. 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s mother has been suffering from ill health and she has to take care of her mother. 6. As seen from the pleadings, the petitioner was initially appointed at Visakhapatnam and thereafter, transferred to Bobbili, Ichapuram, Bhimili etc. While revoking the suspension, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Public Prosecutor, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Tekkali is 165 KM distance from Visakhapatnam, is no ground to interfere with the proceedings (Ex.P.2.). It is not the case of the petitioner that it is a punitive order. The 2nd respondent, upon considering the petitioner’s representation revoked the suspension and issued posting orders. The petitioner cannot choose a place of her choice. As an Assistant Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has to discharge her duties wherever she is posted. Given the discussions supra, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date: 23.01.2025 KA 4 275 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 30000/2024 Date: 23.01.2025 KA