APHC010582062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 30306/2025 Between: 1. C HAZARATHAIAH, S/O GURIAH AGED 51 YEARS OCC. SGT (SUSPENDED) O/O MPPS KODURU, TP GUDUR NELLORE ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, VENKATADRI TOWERS, ATMAKUR (M) MANGALAGIRI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR. 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents, more specifically the action of the 5th respondent, the District Educational Officer, Nellore, in issuing Suspension proceeding Vide Rc.No.4521/B3/205 dated 22.10.2025 and Articles of Charge vide Rc.No.4521/B3/2025 dated 25.10.2025 against the Petitioner for his participation in a Deeksha in his capacity as General Secretary of the Teachers Federation, representing the teachers who were not relieved even after issuance of transfer orders during the transfer counselling held in June 2025 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the said Suspension proceeding vide Rc.No.4521/B3/205 dated 22.10.2025 and Articles of Charge vide Rc.No.4521/B3/2025 dated 25.10.2025 and Direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and direct the respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's service career or initiate any disciplinary proceedings against him without issue a proper written notice clearly indicating the reasons and affording due opportunity in accordance with law. 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 to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Suspension proceeding Vide Rc.No.4521/B3/205 dated 22.10.2025 and Articles of Charge vide Rc.No.4521/B3/2025 dated 25.10.2025, including any disciplinary enquiry or coercive steps against the Petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAMARTHY RATHNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.30306 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the suspension Proceedings issued vide Rc.No.4521/B3/2025 dated 22.10.2025 by Respondent No.5 and framing of Articles of Charges vide Rc.No.4521/B3/2025 dated 25.10.2025 against the Petitioner for his participation in a ‘Deeksha’ in the capacity of General Secretary of Andhra Pradesh Teachers’ Federation, SPSR Nellore District with regard to Teachers’ transfers in Nellore District in June, 2025, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner is presently working as Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) at MPPS Koduru, TP Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. It is stated that the Petitioner being an office bearer and representative of a recognized Teachers’ Federation in Nellore District, in the capacity of General Secretary and aggrieved by the illegality in the Teachers’ transfers in June, 2025, went on ‘Deeksha’ on 14.10.2025 and in spite of the same, the District Educational Officer, SPSR Nellore District had intimated to the President and General Secretary of APTF, SPSR Nellore District vide Letter in Rc.No.4521/B3/2025, dated 15.10.2025 stating that it would not be 4 possible for them in not relieving the Teachers, who are transferred, as the same is a policy decision. In spite of the same, the Petitioner proceeded with ‘Deeksha’ on 17.10.2025 for 48 hours and stated that the ‘Deeksha’ would be extended for further 24 hours. 3. It is further stated in the writ affidavit that on 21.10.2025 the Petitioner addressed another letter stating that they would continue ‘Relay Nirahara Deeksha’ till the problem is resolved. However, in the light of the conduct of the Petitioner, the Respondent- authorities issued Proceedings on 22.10.2025 suspending him from service on account of his conduct contrary to the Rules and negligence of his duties as SGT. On the same day i.e. on 25.10.2025, the Petitioner was issued a Charge-Memorandum under Rule 20 of A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991, where under two Articles of Charges were framed with regard to proposal to conduct 48 hours ‘Deeksha’ and the Petitioner having not evaluated FA-2 marks and online entry, which reflects willful negligence itself. Questioning the impugned order of suspension and Charge-Memorandum, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri Pamarthy Rathnakar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri Challa Srinivas appearing for the Respondents. 5 5. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Petitioner restricts his arguments only to the extent of impugned suspension proceedings. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner being General Secretary of APTF, SPSR Nellore District, is entitled to go on ‘Deeksha’ to expose the grievance of the Teachers, who have been transferred in accordance with the transfer policy. 6. The learned counsel further submits that the ‘Deeksha’ would in turn mean that the Petitioner would be sitting on ‘Hunger Strike’ in the capacity as ‘General Secretary’ and not in the ‘individual capacity’. It is further submitted that Rule 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 prohibits a person in his individual capacity and not a person, who is an office bearer of a recognized Teachers’ Union/Federation. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner in support of his contentions relied on a decision reported in Kameshwar Prasad and Others v. The State of Bihar and Another1 wherein a similar provision pertaining to Bihar Government was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that the said Rule can only be 1 1960 S.C.R 369 6 understood as prohibiting ‘strike’ and there is no fundamental right to resort to a strike. The counsel further submits that the Petitioner had sought for requisite permission to go on casual leave and the same was approved by the Respondent-authorities. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the Petitioner being Secondary Grade Teacher ought to give priority to his duties and it would not be possible for the Respondent- authorities to appraise and convince all the office bearers of every district. It is further submitted that the ‘Deeksha’ is in the form of ‘Strike’ and the same is prohibited under Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 9. Heard the respective counsel. 10. Rule 4 of A.P.C.S (Conduct) Rules, 1964 reads as under; Strikes 4. No Government employee shall participate in any strike or similar activities or incitement thereto. Explanation:- The expression “Similar activities” shall be deemed to include- (i) absence from duty or work without permission. 7 (ii) neglect of duty with the object of compelling any superior officer or Government to take or omit to take any official action; (iii) any demonstrative fast, like Hunger Strike with the object mentioned in item (ii); or (iv) concerted or organized refusal on the part of Government employees to receive their pay. 11. The Clause (iii) of the above Rule is that the ‘Hunger Strike’ is also to be treated a ‘strike’ provided the object of the ‘Hunger Strike’ is with reference to sub-clause (ii) neglect of duty with the object of compelling any superior officer or Government to take or omit to take any official action. 12. In the present case, prima facie, there is no neglect of duty as mentioned in Rule 4, as the Petitioner had applied for casual leave. Be that as it may, suspension orders are passed to keep the employee out of mischief range and to complete the proceedings without hindrance. 13. In the present case, as the Charge-Memorandum is issued, the continuance of suspension of the Petitioner needs to be re-examined by the Respondents as there is no possibility of tampering with evidence in cases of this nature and necessity of 8 wastage of Government monies by paying subsistence allowance without extracting any work from the Petitioner. 14. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions; (i) The Respondent-authorities shall examine the requirement of continuation of the Petitioner under suspension, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (ii) In default, the impugned order of suspension stands revoked without further reference to the orders of this Court; (ii) No order as to costs. 16. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 08.12.2025 IS 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.30306 of 2025 Dated: 08.12.2025 IS