1 APHC010445702021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] SUNDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 27061/2021 Between: 1. B CHALAPATHI RAO REDDY,, S/O. LATE SRIRAMULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, A R CONSTABLE PC169, 0/0. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, VISAKAPATNAM, R/O. 25-4-70/1, GOLLAVEEDHI, SANTHA NAGAR, OLD GAJUVAKA, VISAKAPATNAM 530026 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME ( SER-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BLDGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKAPATNAM CITY, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT ...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 to pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for the records pertaining to order passed in Memorandum in RC No. 791 /T3/2021 dated 16.8.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the mercy petition filed by the petitioner against the punishment of removal from service confirming, the order of removal in Appeal 2 passed by the 2nd Respondent in Dis No. 1390/Appeal- 4/2012, dated 19.7.2012 and the Revision Petition rejected by the 1st respondent in Memo No. 36590/Ser.II/A2/2012, dated 15.4.2013 and also confirming the order of removal from service passed by the 3rd respondent in D.O. No. 756/2009 C No. 2/PR/2007 dated 3.7.2009 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without conducting any denova enquiry and contrary to Rule 20 of the Rules issued in AP Civil Services (CCEt A ) Rules, 1991 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith with continuity of service and Service monitory benefits and to pass 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 be pleased to reinstate the petitioner into service as Armed Reserve Constable by suspending the order passed by the 2nd respondent Memorandum in RC No. 791/T3/2021 dated 16.8.2021 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and to pass necessary order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 27061/2021 ORDER:- Heard Sri A. Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services –I, appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the mercy petition filed by the petitioner against the punishment of removal from service, which was confirmed in appeal vide Dis. No.1390/Appeal-4/2012 dated 19.07.2012, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed as an ‘Armed Reserve Constable’ vide proceedings dated 29.06.1990 issued by the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, a charge memo was issued by the 3rd respondent alleging misconduct on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge memo. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent, without conducting any enquiry, issued proceedings dated 03.07.2009, imposing the punishment of removal from service. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 03.04.2012 before the 2nd respondent, which was rejected vide proceedings dated 19.07.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent, and by proceedings dated 15.04.2013, the 1st respondent confirmed the order of removal passed by the 3rd respondent. 4 Subsequently, the petitioner appears to have filed mercy petitions before the 2nd respondent, which were rejected. 5. The subject petition being the 4th mercy petition, the 2nd respondent rejected the same vide proceedings dated 16.08.2021, stating that there is no provision under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, to entertain the same. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the original orders of removal and orders passed in appeal and revision are without any reasons and therefore, sought indulgence of this Court. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in as much as under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, filing of mercy petition has not been provided for. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous application pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:28.11.2025 MVK 5 558 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 27061 OF 2021 Date: 28.11.2025 MVK