APHC010641052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 33098/2025 Between: 1. K. SUPRASAD, S/O LATE K. BUDDANA, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC HEAD MASTER (PSHM), MANDAL PARISHAD PRATHAMIKA PATASHALA (ADI ANDHRA SCHOOL) PEDDAKADABUR R/O 12/125-1, HARIJANAWADA, YEMMIGANUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (SCHOOL EDUCATION), KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, , KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. INQUIRY OFFICER CUM DY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER FAC, ADONI. 5. PRESENTING OFFICER CUM MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICERLL, PEDDAKADABUR MANDAL, KURNOOL 2 DISTRICT. ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Articles of Charge served on the petitioner by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.5175/B3/2024 dated 12.02.2025 thereby framing 3 charges as against me without specific and definite details of the charges without any witnesses, contrary to Rule 20(3) of AP CCA Rules and contrary to service law jurisprudence, as illegal, irregular, irrational, unjust and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of constitution of India and contrary to GO Ms.No 91 dated 12.09.2022 and GO Ms.No 22 dated 29.02.2024 of GAD and quash the Article of Charges as vague and incomprehensible and consequently suspend the Article of Charges served by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.5175/B3/2024 dated 12.02.2025 to the petitioner as the same are vague and pass such IA 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 may be pleased to direct the respondent No: 3 to reinstate the petitioner into duties pending disciplinary proceedings without reference to Article of Charges as the charges are vague and without any witnesses pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.33098 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the Articles of Charge served on the Petitioner vide Rc.No.5175/B3/2024 dated 12.02.2025 contrary to Rule 20(3) of the APCS(CCA) Rules 1991 (for short ‘the Rules). 2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under: The Petitioner had joined as School Teacher on 05.07.1991. While he was working as Mandal Parishad Prathamika Patashala (Adi Andhra School), Peddakadabur Village, Kurnool District, a charge memo was issued whereunder, three Articles of charge were framed against the Petitioner. The Articles of charge are with regard to misbehaviour of the Petitioner with girl students. The charges are sought to be supported on the basis of letter dated 05.08.2024 of MEO-I and MEO-II of Peddakadubur Mandal and FIR registered against the Petitioner. No witnesses were cited in Annexure-IV. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Articles of charges are vague and statement of imputation does not 4 provide any clarity to the Articles of charges. It is further stated that the impugned charge memo cannot be sustained as no witnesses have been cited in the Annexure-IV of the charge memo and the same is contrary to Rule 20(3) of the Rules. As regards suspension, learned counsel submits that the G.O.Ms.No.22 provides for a maximum period of suspension for a period of one year. In this case, the Petitioner has been suspended on 25.09.2024 and more than one and half year has lapsed and this aspect needs to be considered by the Respondent-Authorities. 4. Sri P.Ganesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits on instructions that a fresh charge memo would be issued to the Petitioner in compliance with the Rules giving clarity regarding the Articles of charges against the Petitioner and the oral and documentary evidence on which the proposed charges against the Petitioner are sought to be sustained. As regards suspension, learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions submits that the same would be considered by the Respondent-Authorities. 5 5. Heard Sri M.Solmon Raju, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services. 6. The three Articles of charges though are grave in nature, but at the same time, they are vague as no specific incident is pointed out in the Articles of charge. Further, the Articles of charge regarding misbehaviour can be sustained only on oral evidence and in the absence of any witnesses cited in Annexure- IV, the enquiry into the impugned charge memo is a non-starter. Apart from that, Rule 20(3) of the Rules 1991 provides for definite and distinct Articles of charge along with statement of imputation and list of witnesses on which the Articles of charge is proposed to be sustained. In the present case, the impugned Articles of charge does not fall within the parameters prescribed under Rule 20(3) of the Rules. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The impugned charge memo dated 12.02.2025 stand quashed. (ii) The Respondents are at liberty to issue charge memo random to the Petitioner in consonance with the Rules. 6 (iii) The Respondent-authorities shall consider the requirement of continuance of suspension of the Petitioner under G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 20.05.2025 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 04.12.2025 KLP