APHC010438012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 22872/2025 Between: Kakumanu Rami Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V.N.V.SURYA DATTU 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.22872 of 2025 O R DE R: The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent Authorities in issuing the proceedings in ROC.No.30/Hr/2022, dated 05.03.2025 keeping the Petitioner temporarily out of employment as Field Assistant as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows: The Petitioner was working as Field Assistant since 2008. While so, the Respondent No.3 issued the impugned Proceedings dated 05.03.2025 keeping the Petitioner temporarily out of employment as Field Assistant and also issued show cause notice dated 13.06.2025 to submit an explanation. After receipt of notice, Petitioner had submitted his explanation on 11.03.2025 denying the allegations. It is stated that after submitting the explanation by the Petitioner, no Charge Memo has been issued and no departmental enquiry has been initiated. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that as the enquiry proceedings were not concluded within the time specified in Clause 13 (B)(5) of the Field Assistants Human Resource Policy i.e. 30 days, the Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service. The counsel also relied on an order passed in similar circumstances by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16643 of 2025. 4. Learned standing counsel submits that the enquiry will be initiated and the same would be concluded within three weeks. The further contention is that the guidelines are not statutory and even otherwise, no consequence is stated for non-compliance of the time frame of 30 days and therefore, the same cannot be said to be mandatory. The maintainability of the writ petition was also urged as the nature of job of the Petitioner is akin to Labour. 5. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court, without going into the issues urged by the Respondent counsel, is inclined to dispose of the writ petition in terms of W.P.No.16643 of 2025 with a direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate the Petitioner into service and conclude the enquiry after providing due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within a 4 period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 26.09.2025 eha 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.22872 of 2025 Dt. 26.09.2025 eha