1 APHC010065722026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 3881/2026 Between: 1. IEDAMAKANTI VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, S/O. CHINNA ANKI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC PANCHAYATH SECRETARY (UNDER SUSPENSION), RIO. D. NO. 2-63F, PASUPUGILLU VILLAGE, MUNDLAMURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI-522238. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, D. NO.12-47, PVS ICON, PATHURU CROSS ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.-522501. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE-523001. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523001. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE REVENUE DIVISION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523001. 2 6. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TALLURU MANDAL, PRAKASAMDISTRICT-523111 ...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 any writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent authorities more particularly the Respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned suspension order vide Roc No.576/2025-1(Pts ) A2 dated 24.01.2026 by suspending the Petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary, Narava Gram Panchayat (Deputation), Giddalur Mandal, Markapur District without issuing any prior notice, without furnishing the complaint copy/inquiry report, and without seeking any explanation from the Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, void, against the principles of natural justice, against the service rules in vogue and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 pass an interim order by suspending the impugned Suspension Order vide Roc No. 57612025-1(Pts) A2 dated 24.01.2026 issued by the Respondent No.3, until disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 pass an interim order by directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in his post of Panchayat Secretary at his original working place Nagambotlapale m Panchayat, Tallur Mandal, Prakasam District with all consequential benefits, until disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent- authorities more particularly respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned suspension order dated 24.01.2026 by suspending the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary, Narava Gram Panchayat, Giddalur Mandal, Markapur District without issuing any prior notice, without furnishing the complaint copy/inquiry report and without seeking any explanation, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading for filing the Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner was initially appointed as Panchayat Secretary Grade-IV vide proceedings dated 21.07.2014 and posted at Pedavuyyalawada Village, Darsi Mandal. The petitioner joined in his duty on 24.07.2014 and he was promoted as Panchayat Secretary Grade-III on 31.03.2018. During the petitioner’s tenure as in-charge Panchayat Secretary at Talluru, he noticed that the Digital Assistant viz., Sk. Babji was irregular in her duties and was negligent in providing digital services to the villagers and the petitioner issued a memo dated 22.07.2025 to Sk. Babji directing her to submit an explanation within 24 hours regarding her negligence of duties. Thereafter, the petitioner had issued a circular dated 02.06.2025, ordering an immediate inquiry into her conduct and 4 the said Digital Assistant Sk. Babji, assuming that the petitioner would take further disciplinary action against her, bore grudge against the petitioner and to shield herself started accusing the petitioner of false allegations that the petitioner harassed her. Suddenly, the vide order dated 24.01.2026, the petitioner was suspended by the 3rd respondent and a charge memo has also been issued in Roc.No.576 of 2025 dated 24.01.2026. Subsequent to the receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his request on 20.01.2026 for supply of documents and though the same was received by the respondent, but so far the respondents have not furnished any documents to the petitioner for submitting the explanation, which is contrary to prescribed procedure under Section 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, “the Rules, 1991”). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rules 20 and 21 of Rules, 1991, prescribes an elaborate procedure for conducting an enquiry for major penalties. Though the charge memo has been received in accordance with Rule 20(11) of Rules, 1991, the respondents have not furnished the relevant documents to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further brought to the notice of this Court that as per Rule 21(11) of Rules, 1991, it specifies furnishing of documents before submission of explanation. In the instant case, despite request made by the petitioner, the respondents have not furnished any of the documents which 5 they have relied upon for initiating the disciplinary proceedings vide charge memo dated 24.01.2026. 5. Considering the submission and on perusal of the material on record, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned suspense orders dated 24.01.2026, but on perusal of Rules 20 and 21 of Rules, 1991, there shall be a direction to the respondents to provide all the documents which are relevant for submission of the explanation by the petitioner pursuant to the charge memo dated 24.01.2026, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After providing documents to the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to submit his explanation within a period of two weeks thereafter and based on his explanation, the respondents authorities may proceed as per the procedure contemplated under Rules 20 and 21 of Rules, 1991 and conclude the enquiry as per G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, which reads as follows:- “ix. Government direct that in all simple cases the inquiry initiated against Government Servant shall be completed within three months either by Departmental Officers or Commissioner of Inquiries. In complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the inquiry should be completed within five to six months. The Secretaries to Government shall review the progress of the inquiries ordered in all disciplinary cases and submit a note on the cases pending beyond the stipulated time to Chief Secretary to Government and also the Chief Minster.” 6 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _____________ D. RAMESH,J Date:10.03.2026 Gk. 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH 90 WRIT PETITION No.3881 OF 2026 Date:10.03.2026 Gk