APHC010450062021 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: 27155/2021 Between: 1. P.SAMBASIVA REDDY,, S/O.MOPURU REDDY, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC- PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, KALAMALLA GRAM PANCHYAT, YERRAGUNTLA 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 topleased 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 petitioner on 20-10-2021, after elapse of 9 years, 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, 2 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, with all consequential benefits or otherwise petitioner will suffer serious loss and great hardship 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 pleased to grant interim suspension of the Charge Memo.No.1001119/CPR & RD/Vig/2019, dated. 28-08-2021,issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHALLA SIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV 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 1995 and further promoted as Grade-I Village Development Officer in 2008. It is contended that the 1st respondent re-designated the posts in Panchayat Raj Department and the petitioner was re-designated as Panchayat Secretary Grade-I in 2002. While he was discharging duties at Kallamalla Grama Panchayat, Yerraguntla Mandal, Kadapa District, a vigilance enquiry was conducted into the construction of Educational Institutions at Peddasetipalli Village, Proddatur Mandal, 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 3 failure on the part of the petitioner in supervising properly the construction as per the approved plans in respect of M/s.Srinivasa Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peddasettipalli Gram Panchayat and Gowthami Institute of Technology and Management for Women, Sainagar, Peddasettipalli Proddatur. To which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 06.02.2014. In 2014, an enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent, vide proceedings dated 30.11.2016, addressed to the 2nd respondent, stated that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. The 2nd respondent accordingly issued proceedings dated 15.05.2017 ratifying the charge memo issued by the 4th respondent and informed the 4th respondent to take disciplinary action against the Panchayat Secretaries. It is contended that after nine (9) years, from the date of allegations made against the petitioner, the 2nd respondent vide impugned 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 6 736 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.27155 of 2021 Date:19.09.2025 ANI