Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 43769 (AP)

A KULLAYAPPA v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/35842/2025 · 2025-12-23

Nyapathy Vijay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010697062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 35842/2025 Between: A Kullayappa ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V S KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.35842 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed questioning the suspension order issued vide Ref.No.REV.ASECODISC/8/2025-SA(A$)- KDPCO, dated 22.02.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner. 2. The petitioner has been working as Village Revenue Officer, K. Rajupalle Village, K. Yerragudi Mandal. While so, the impugned order of suspension was issued under Rule 8(1) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, on the premise that there are certain allegations against the petitioner. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is dated 22.02.2025, and the continuance of the order of suspension amounts to punishment. He further submits that the proposed charges against the petitioner do not warrant keeping the petitioner under suspension for such a long time. 3 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that disciplinary action is being initiated against the petitioner and considering the charges that are proposed against the petitioner, the order of suspension cannot be found fault with. 5. Heard the respective counsel. 6. G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 29.02.2024 wherein the Government after taking into consideration earlier G.Os. directed that orders of suspension should be reviewed every (04) months and the outer limit of suspension was reduced to one year. The paragraph No.5 of the said G.O. is extracted below: “After careful examination of the matter, after reviewing the said G.Os., duly obtaining the advice of the Competent Authority and in modification of the orders issued in the G.Os.1st to 4th read above, Government hereby direct to reduce the outer limit of suspension of Government servant from two (2) years to one (1) year from the date of suspension of the Government servant fixed in read with G.O.Ms.No.86, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept., dt.8.3.1994 read with G.O.Ms.No.526, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept., dt 19.8.2008 and G.O.Rt No.2285, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept., Dt.18.05.2012 for reinstatement of the Government servant under suspension, subject to all other conditions stipulated therein and also direct to review the order of 4 suspension against a Government servant both in ACB and Departmental Inquiries at the end of every four (4) months instead of six (6) months fixed in G.O.Ms.No.86, G A. (Ser.C) Dept., dt.8.3.1994.” 7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed directing the respondents to review the impugned suspension order dated 22.02.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent in terms of paragraph No.5 of the above G.O. within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 24.12.2025 eha 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.35842 of 2025 Date: 24.12.2025 eha