APHC010114222026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 6263/2026 Between: 1. CH MADHUSUDHAN RAO, S/O LATE BHASKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE (PC NO. 606) III TOWN (L O) POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530 002 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503. 2. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503. 3. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530 017. ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not implementing the order dated 18.11.2025 in W. P. No. 29432 of 2022 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith implement the said order and the Inquiry Officers report dated 03.04.2023 by revoking the suspension orders, reinstating the Petitioner with all consequential benefits including backwages, regularising the suspension period from 27.10.2010 to 19.10.2014 as on dutyfor all purposes granting notional promotion to the post of ASI with effect from 15.09.2021 promoting against existing vacancies fixing seniority, re-fixing pay and releasing all consequential monetary benefits and arrears and to pass….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Police Constable on 01.08.1990 by the 2nd respondent in Visakhapatnam City and served in various police stations. In 2006 he was posted to Harbour Police Station and later transferred to Padmanabham Police Station in 2010. After his transfer, a complaint dated 10.10.2010 was lodged by Sarat Chatterjee & Co., Visakhapatnam alleging diversion of coal during transit, based on which cases in FIR Nos.117/2010 and 121/2010 were registered under Sections 406, 407, 408 and 120-B IPC. Subsequently, based on the confession of one accused, the petitioner was implicated as A11 and another Police Constable as A12, and the case was taken on file as C.C. No.84 of 2011 and later renumbered as C.C. No.825 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. A departmental enquiry was also conducted under Rule 20 of the AP Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, and the Enquiry Officer, by report dated 03.04.2023, held that the charges were not proved, observing that the witness statements were unreliable, lacked corroboration, and suffered from procedural lapses, which was also consistent with the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No.29432 of 2022 before this Court challenging the initiation of departmental enquiry despite his acquittal, and by common order dated 18.11.2025 in W.P. Nos.29432 and 29434 of 2022 this Court set aside the impugned proceedings, holding that reopening disciplinary proceedings based on preliminary enquiry after submission of the Enquiry Officer’s report exonerating the delinquent employee is legally unsustainable. Pursuant to the said order and the Enquiry Officer’s report, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.11.2025 seeking implementation of the Court’s directions, including revocation of suspension, reinstatement with consequential benefits, regularization of suspension period as “on duty”, grant of notional promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector with effect from 15.09.2021, fixation of seniority and pay, and payment of all attendant benefits. However, the respondents have neither considered the representation nor implemented the Court’s order. Hence the writ petition. 4. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material available on record, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 25.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the observations made in the above referred judgment, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 06.03.2026 klk 126 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 6263/2026 06.03.2026 klk