APHC010443932021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 26852/2021 Between: 1. M MOHAMMAD RIYAZUDDIN, S/O.GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN, AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, WORKING IN 0/O.MPDO,KORRAPADU GRAMAPANCHAYAT, RAJUPALEM MANDAL,YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522503. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT., OF A.P., PVS ICON BUILDING, TADEPALLI BYPASS ROAD, TADEAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522501. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, O/O.COLLECTORATE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516 001. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PTS, KADAPA,KADAPA DISTRICT-516 001. ...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 illegal action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the Charge Memo.No.1001119/CPR and RD/Vig/2019, dated. 28-08- 2021 which was served to me on 22-10-2021, after elapse of 9 years and not promoting the petitioner on par with his juniors from the post of 2 Panchayat Secretary Grade-I to the post, of Extension Officer (PRandRD) in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10-06-1999 and G 0.Ms.No.529, dated 19- 08-2008 of General Administration (Services-C) Department, which is highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of CCC and A Rules, GO.Ms.No.679, dated.01-11-2008 and consequently set aside the Charge Memo.No.1001119/CPR and RD/Vig/2019, dated. 28-08- 2021 issued by the 2nd respondent by calling the records and further direct the respondents 1 to 4 to promote petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary Grade-I to the post of Extension Officer (PRandRD) w.e.f. 2018, forthwith with all consequential benefits or otherwise petitioner will suffer serious loss and great hardship and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 grant interim suspension of the Charge Memo.No.1001119/CPR and RD/Vig/2019, dated. 28-08-2021,issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHALLA SIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri Challa Sivasankar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services - IV. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Village Development Officer, Grade-II in the year 1993 and further promoted as Grade-I Village Development Officer. Subsequently, in 2002, he was re-designated as Panchayat Secretary Grade-I. While he was discharging duties at Chinthakunta Gram Panchayat, Duvvur Mandal, Kadapa District, a vigilance 3 enquiry was conducted into the construction of GajulapallivariKalyana Mandapam, Mydukur Road at Proddatur, Kadapa District. 3. It is contended that a charge memo was issued by the 4th respondent dated 27.01.2014, framing charge alleging that there was a failure on the part of the petitioner in supervising properly the construction of GajulapallivariKalyana Mandapam. To which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.02.2014. In 2014, an enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the 4th respondent. The 4threspondent, vide proceedings dated 30.11.2016, addressed to the 2ndrespondent, stated that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. The2ndrespondent accordingly issued proceedings dated 15.05.2017 ratifying the charge memo issued by the 4threspondent and informed the 4threspondent to take disciplinary action against the Panchayat Secretaries. However, after four (4) years, the 2ndrespondent videimpugned proceedings dated 28.08.2021 furnished articles of charges against the Panchayat Secretaries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008. In terms of the said G.O., it is contended that once the disciplinary proceedings are initiated, the same shall have to be concluded within six (6) months from the date of its initiation. Thus, contends that the 4th respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings in 2011 and charges were framed in 2014 and the enquiry officer’s report was ratified on 15.05.2017. After lapse of four (4) years, the impugned proceedings have 4 been issued by the 2nd respondent, framing articles of charges. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the 1st respondent vide his memo dated 03.03.2020 directed the 2nd respondent to cancel the charge memo issued on 27.01.2014 by the 4th respondent on the ground that the 2nd respondent is the appointing authority and not the 4th respondent. Therefore, directed the 2nd respondent to cancel the proceedings of the District Collector-4th respondent and to initiate common disciplinary proceedings against all the charged officers, afresh. In pursuance thereof, the impugned proceedings have been issued. 5. It is contended that once the charge memo dated 27.01.2014 is cancelled, the subsequent proceedings would become null and void and the issuance of impugned proceedings after lapse of nine (9) years from the date of alleged negligence in supervision are without jurisdiction. Once the first charge memo is cancelled, it is deemed that no charges were pending as on the date of issuance of the impugned proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.11776 and 11779 dated 19.07.2021. 6. The 2nd respondent filed counter stating that the Government vide Memo dated 03.03.2020 issued instructions to cancel the disciplinary proceedings issued against the petitioner by the 4th respondent-District Collector, since he was not the appropriate authority. Therefore, through the impugned proceedings, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner afresh. 5 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in the writ petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.11776 and 11779 dated 19.07.2021. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - IV does not dispute the same. 8. Having regard to the same, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the orders passed in W.P.Nos.11776 and 11779 dated 19.07.2021. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:19.09.2025 ANI 6 734 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.26852 of 2021 Date:19.09.2025 ANI