1 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) APHC010010252024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3572] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT APPEAL NO: 30/2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to issue an appropriate Direction or Order to Set aside the Order dt.4.1.2023 and consequential orders passed in I.A.No.l of 2023 dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Honble High court of A.P in WP (AT) No.636/2021 and to pass Between: 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ESTTII DEPARTMENT 5TH BLOCK SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF R W S ANDS DEPARTMENT, STATE OF AP VASUDHA SHELTER CBLOCK, GOLLAPUDI POST VIJAYAWADA RURAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER ADMIN, 3. R W S AND5 STATE OF AP VASUDHA SHELTER CBLOCK GOLLAPUDI POST VIJAYAWADA RURAL KRISHNA DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. SRI P V NAGA SAI, S/o. P.V. Rama Krishna Rao Aged 43 years, Occ- Asst. Executive Engineer, O/o. Dy.Executive Engineer, PR Engg. Dept. PIU Sub-Division, Mowa, Krishna District 2 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) ...RESPONDENT IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 dispense with the certified copy of the final order dated 04.01.2023, passed in W.P (AT).No.636 of 2021 and (Review I.A) Order dated 14.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.l of 2023 in W.P(AT) No.636 of 2021 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 condone the delay of337days in filing the writ appeal and to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 suspend the operation of the final orders dated 04.01.2023 passed in W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021 and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. . 2. GP FOR SERVICES IV Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PARTY IN PERSON The Court made the following: 3 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) JUDGMENT:-(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the writ appellants and the respondent-Sri P.V.Naga Sai (writ petitioner) appearing in person. 2. The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 04.01.2023 passed in W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021, and the order dated 14.12.2023 passed in Review I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge. 3. W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021 by the writ petitioner/respondent in writ appeal was allowed and Review I.A.No.1 of 2023 filed by the State and its authorities/ the writ appellants, was dismissed. I.A.No.1 of 2024 4. This application has been filed to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the final order dated 04.01.2013 passed in W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021 and the order dated 14.12.2013 passed in Review I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021. 5. Considering the cause shown in the affidavit as also submissions advanced, filing the certified copies as aforesaid, is dispensed with. 4 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) I.A.No.2 of 2024 6. The Writ Appeal was filed on 06.01.2024 along with I.A.No.2 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay of 337 days. 7. Learned counsel for the writ appellants submits that the final order in the writ petition was communicated to the Government on 11.04.2023 and immediately, a decision was taken to file review application. However, due to administrative reasons, the review application could be filed on 28.06.2023, which was heard on 8.12.2023 and was reserved for orders, which was passed on 14.12.2023. Consequently, there is a delay in filing the writ appeal, which is neither deliberate nor willful. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the cause contained in the affidavit is a sufficient cause. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent/writ petitioner contending that the cause shown is not sufficient. Delay has not been explained on a day-to-day basis. Filing and pendency of review petition is not a tenable ground to condone the delay. The delay cannot be condoned. 9. The respondent submits that the Writ Appeal is not maintainable after the rejection of Review I.A.No.1 of 2023. He further submits that the order in review has not been challenged. So, the same 5 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) became final. In case of any grievance, the writ appellants should have filed appeal against the order in review. 10. The writ petition was allowed on 04.01.2023. Review petition was filed. It was dismissed on 14.12.2023. The writ appeal was filed on 06.01.2024. The writ appellants were pursuing the remedy of review against the order in the writ petition. After the review came to be dismissed, the Writ Appeal was filed challenging both the orders passed in the writ petition and in the review petition. The writ appeal has been filed within a reasonable period of 30 days from the order in reivew under challenge in the writ appeal. 11. We are of the view that there is no delay in filing writ appeal from the date of the order in review and so far as, the order in writ petition is concerned, the writ appellants were pursuing the remedy of review, open to them in law. The delay if any against the order in writ petition is for the sufficient cause, which deserves to be condoned. 12. The contention of the respondent is not correct. It has been correctly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that in the writ appeal, the review order is also under challenge. 6 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) 13. In State of M.P. Vs. Ram Kumar Chowdary cited by the respondent, there was delay of more than five years and the explanation furnished by the State was not found to be sufficient. It was observed that the „sufficient cause‟ cannot be liberally, interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides is attributed to the party. In the present case, we are of the view that after the order in the review application on 14.12.2023, the writ appeal was filed on 06.01.2024 and consequently, there is no negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides, that can be attributed to the State. 14. We are satisfied with the cause shown as sufficient to condone the delay. The delay is condoned. 15. I.A.No.2 of 2024 is allowed. Maintainability of Writ Appeal : 16. The another contention of the respondent(writ petitioner) is that the writ appeal is not maintainable after filing of the review petition. 17. The aforesaid contention deserves rejection. 18. The writ appeal is maintainable against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, even after the rejection of the review petition, as also against the order in the review petition. 7 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) Writ Appeal on merits : 19. Now we come to the merits of the writ appeal. 20. The writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) in the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department through the APPSC and was allotted to Zone-II. While he was working at Vijayawada, he was placed under suspension on 12.02.2013 on the ground of his alleged involvement in a criminal case. He filed O.A.No.2241 of 2013 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short, “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal initially passed an interim order dated 03.04.2013 suspending the order of suspension and directing the respondents therein to reinstate the writ petitioner into service forthwith, without prejudice to their right to initiate departmental enquiry or to await the result of the criminal case, vide proceedings dated 08.04.2013. The writ petitioner was reinstated into service, but he was not posted at the same place, i.e., Vijayawada, but at a different place at Kakinada. Against the proceedings dated 08.04.2013, writ petitioner filed O.A.No.2626 of 2013, which was disposed of by the Tribunal at the stage of admission on 16.04.2013, directing the 1st respondent therein to post the writ petitioner at his original place, i.e., at Vijayawada. The order dated 16.04.2013 was challenged by the State/writ appellants in W.P.No.18317 of 2013, in which, initially, the order of the Tribunal dated 16.04.2013 was suspended on 30.06.2013, and later on the writ petition 8 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) was finally disposed of, vide order dated 30.07.2013, setting aside the order of the Tribunal and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 21. Upon fresh consideration, after remand O.A. No. 2626 of 2013 was dismissed by the Tribunal on 07.08.2014. In the said O.A., the proceedings dated 08.04.2013, whereby the writ petitioner was not granted posting at his original place at Vijayawada was under challenge. By order dated 07.08.2014, the Tribunal affirmed the proceedings dated 08.04.2013 clearly observing in paragraph Nos.15 to 17 as under : “15. In view of the above facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, the impugned order dated 08.04.2013 is not bad in law. The point is answered accordingly. 16. Point No.II : For the reasons stated above, the relief sought to set aside the impugned order dated 8.04.2013, where under the applicant is instated and allotted to RWS & S Circle, Vijayawada, does not deserve to be granted. 17. Accordingly, the O.A., is dismissed. No costs.” 9 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) 22. The writ petitioner did not challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 07.08.2014 in O.A. No. 2626 of 2013. We specifically asked the writ petitioner/respondent/party-in-person, upon which he submitted that the order was not challenged. 23. The learned Government Pleader submits that the writ petitioner did not join at the place of posting and joined in a new job on 8.8.2013 without any relieving order from the department. 24. The State government issued G.O.Rt.No.722 (Panchayat and Rural Development (Estt..) Department, dated 28.07.2016. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved of the said G.O.Rt.No.722 challenged the same in O.A.No.435 of 2017 before the Tribunal. The relevant portion of G.O.,in paragraph Nos.8, 10, 11 & 12 read as follows: “8. In the reference a read above, the Hon'ble APAT while dismissing the OA.No.2626/13 on 7-8-2014 has observed that the applicant was suspended when he was working In RWS&S Circle, Vijayawada. After reinstating the applicant into service, the respondent authority considered it appropriate to post him to RWS&S Circle, Kakinada, which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as harassment or non-application of mind. Since the applicant has now joined in another Department without even getting relief from the respondent authorities, the question of giving him another posting does not arise. They have further observed that the order of suspension dt. 12-2-2013 was suspended by the Tribunal on 3-4-2013. The applicant was reinstated 10 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) into service and allotted to RWS&S Circle, Kakinada in the same order. But the applicant did not join there. The applicant has also not applied for leave after reinstatement into service nor did he join the duty at RWS&S Circle, Kakinada. Thus, unless the applicant reports to duty at the allotted RWS&S Circle, Kakinada, he cannot claim salary for the period from date of suspension to the date of actual joining at the place of posting. The applicant can claim salary only after a decision is taken on his representation on the issue of regularization of his absence from duty including the suspension period. In any case, the applicant did not ask any relief on this issue in the present O.A. The impugned order dt:8-4-2013 is not bad in law. The relief sought to set aside the Impugned order dt:8-4-2013 whereunder the applicant is reinstated and allotted to RWS&S Circle, Vijayawada, does not deserve to be granted. 10. In the reference 11th read above, the Chief Engineer (Admn), RWS&S, AP, Hyderabad has informed that the individual joined in Panchayat Raj Department. on 8-8-2013 as Assistant Executive Engineer without taking proper relief from RWS&S Department before joining the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department. 11. In the circumstances explained by the Chief Engineer (Admn), RWS&S, A.P., Hyderabad in the reference 11th read above, Government, after careful examination, hereby permit the Chief Engineer (Admn), RWS&S, A.P., Hyderabad to regularize the suspension period from 28.01.2013 to 08.04.2013 in respect of Sri P.V.Nagasai, the then Assistant Executive Engineer, RWS&S, as duty under FR 54 (A)(3) and treat the period 11 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) of absence from 09.04.2013 to 07.08.2013 as Extra Ordinary Leave on private affairs. He is also requested to recover the subsistence allowance already paid to Sri P.V.Nagasai for the period from 09.04.2013 to 30.06.2013, since the said period is treated as EOL on private affairs. 12. Chief Engineer (Admn), RWS&S, A.P., Hyderabad shall take necessary further action in the matter accordingly.” 25. After the abolition of the Tribunal, O.A.No.435 of 2017 was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.(AT) No.636 of 2021. 26. The writ appellants did not file a counter affidavit in W.P.(AT).636 of 2021 in spite of the Court‟s conditional order dated 11.11.2022. 27. The W.P.(AT) No.636 of 2021 was allowed on 04.01.2023. The operative portion in Paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: “12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the both the counsel, the impugned proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.722 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (ESIT.II) Department, dated 28.07.2016 issued by the 1st respondent and directing the 1st respondent to post him in the original place. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law. 12 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.” 28. Thereafter, the Review filed by the writ appellant against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed. 29. On a careful reading of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021, we do not find any reference or consideration of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 07.08.2014 passed in O.A.No.2626 of 2013, after remand pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.18317 of 2013. 30. The G.O.Rt.No.722 (Panchayat and Rural Development (Estt..) Department, dated 28.07.2016, under challenge in W.P.(AT).No.636 of 2021 clearly mentioned that it had taken note of the order of the Tribunal , dated 07.08.2014. However, while setting aside the G.O.Rt.No.722 proceedings, the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2626 of 2013, dated 07.08.2014, which had attained finality, and contrary to the said judgment issued directions to post the writ petitioner at his original place of posting. The Tribunal had clearly ordered that the order dated 08.04.2013 of the department was not bad in law and the relief sought in the O.A., to set aside the order dated 08.04.2013 and to post the writ 13 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) petition at his original place did not deserve to be granted. That order of the Tribunal was never challenged, which attained finality. 31. In the order dismissing the Review Petition as well, there is no reference or consideration of the said order of the Tribunal, though a specific plea was taken in the Review Application, stating “that the petitioner did not file any Writ Petition questioning the orders in O.A.No.2626 of 2013, hence the order becomes final.” 32. We are of the view that the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2626 of 2013, dated 07.08.2014, was a material and relevant fact having a direct bearing on the issue involved in the writ petition(AT). 33. We are of the view that the judgments‟ under challenge deserve to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be considered afresh. 34. The Writ Appeal is allowed. The orders dated 04.01.2023 passed in W.P.(AT) No.636 of 2021 and dated 14.12.2023 passed in Review I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.(AT) No.636 of 2021, passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. W.P.(AT) No.636 of 2021 is restored to its original file for fresh consideration. The writ appellants shall be at liberty to file their counter affidavit in the writ petition. 14 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) 35. The Registry shall list the W.P.(AT).636 of 2021 before the appropriate Bench. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________ BALAJI MEDAMALLI,J Date :11.03.2026. RPD. 15 (RNT,J & BM,J W.A..NO.30 OF 2024) 149 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI (DISPOSED OF) WRIT APPEAL NO: 30 of 2024 Date: 11.03.2026 RPD.