APHC010659252022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 39325/2022 Between: 1. POLIMERA BALA APPALA RAJU, S/O P. SURAYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. CONSTABLE, 0/O THE ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, ANDHRA PRADESH SPECIAL PROTECTION FORCE, URANIUM CORPORATION INDIA LIMITED, (UCIL), THUMMALAPALLI VILLAGE, MC PALLI POST, VEMULA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ANDHRA PRADESH SPECIAL PROTECTION FORCE, VIJAYAWADA,,KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMANDANT, ANDHRA PRADESH SPECIAL PROTECTION FORCE, HEAD QUARTERS, TIRUPATI ZONE, TIRUPATI. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc.No. APSPF/A3/PR/25/2016-20 dated 10.01.2020 of the 2nd respondent in respect of reduction in time scale to pay by 2 stages for a period of 2 years with effect on his future increments and pension by treated as not on duty and consequential proceedings dated 05.03.2020 of the 3rd Respondent for a period of 961 days (01.09.2017 to 01.05.2020) as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16 and 309 of Constitution of India apart from Service 2 Rules and set aside the same and consequentially to direct the 1st respondent to take steps by treat the period of 961 days (01.09.2017 to 01.05.2020) as onduty as per the Service Rules by consider the representation dated 18.08.2022 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the 1st respondent to take steps by treat the period of 961 days (01.09.2017 to 01.05.2020) as onduty as per the Service Rules by consider the representation dated 18.08.2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BOKKA SATYANARAYANA KAMLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services I. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is against the inaction of the respondents in not considering the representation filed by the petitioner dated 18.08.2022. 3. The petitioner was appointed as constable in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh on 01.09.1988, after the bifurcation of the State, he was transferred to Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force on 01.09.2016 and he was posted at Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi. 4. It is contended that while the petitioner was working as a constable in the Special Protection Force, Secunderabad, a Charge Memo 3 was issued alleging his involvement in a Criminal Case in Crime No.60 of 2015 registered before Malakpet Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974. To the said Charge Memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 15.04.2015 denying the charges framed. Out of two charges framed against the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner has denied the charge of alleged involvement in gambling and admitted the second charge of being absent without leave for one (1) day. Requested to treat the same as leave without pay. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 23.04.2016, stating that since the issue is pending before the Court of law regarding the petitioner's alleged involvement in gambling, any observation by him regarding his involvement would cause prejudice to the petitioner. However, since the petitioner has admitted his guilt with regard to the second charge, the enquiry report states that the said charge has been proved. In pursuance of the same, the Additional Commandant, APSPF, Vijayawada, issued a notice to the petitioner on 19.04.2017 to submit his explanation to the enquiry report. In accordance with the same, the petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the charges. The Additional Commandant, without awaiting the outcome of the criminal case, passed the order of removal from service. It is contended that the Additional Commandant, did not give any opportunity before passing the order of removal from service. Against the order of removal from service, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, SPF, Guntur. The said appeal was 4 dismissed on the ground that the Criminal Case was registered against the petitioner. 5. It is further contended that the petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal Case registered against him in FIR.No.60 of 2015. As against the order of removal from service, the petitioner has filed revision before the Director General, AP, SPF, Guntur, on 09.04.2018. The same was rejected. The petitioner approached the Tribunal by challenging the same, while the matter is pending before the Tribunal, the respondents have passed an order reducing the penalty imposed of removal from service to that of reduction of time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two (2) years. 6. The petitioner had accordingly joined the service and filed Revision Petition before the Government on 18.01.2022, against the order of punishment of reduction of pay by two scales, and the same is pending. It is contended that the respondents have acted in violation of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) RULES, 1991, in passing the final orders in the departmental proceedings without waiting for the outcome of the Criminal Case and the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the charges framed. Thus, Revision was preferred to the 1st respondent and the same is pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks disposal of the writ petition directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. 5 7. Having regard to the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition without going into the merits of the issue involved in the case. 8. The 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 18.08.2022 filed by the petitioner within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the order, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, if not has already been disposed of. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:25.07.2025 ANI 6 154 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.39325 of 2022 Date:25.07.2025 ANI