APHC010717132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 36590/2025 Between: Bathula Narayana Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI 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.36590 of 2025 O R DE R: The present writ petition is filed to declare the Proceedings dated 30.01.2025, placing the Petitioner temporarily out of employment vide Rc.No.1289 & 1809/2024/HR, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows: The Petitioner was working as Field Assistant in Mandakuriti Gram Panchayat, Santhakaviti Mandal, Vizianagaram District (erstwhile Srikakulam District). While so, the Respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings on the ground that the Petitioner had committed irregularities in violation of Clause No.12, A1, A.2 & A.4 of the Circular No.666/EGS(P)/2012, dated 08.01.2013 and kept the Petitioner temporarily out of employment as Field Assistant and sought for explanation within 14 days. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that as the enquiry proceedings were not concluded 3 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 Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, submits that the enquiry would be initiated soon 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 2nd respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service and conclude the enquiry after providing due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner 4 within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ii) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 31.12.2025 eha 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 36590/2025 Dt. 31.12.2025 eha