1 APHC010118132026 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: 6697/2026 Between: 1. M.VENKATA KISHORE BABU,, S/O. LATE M.V.SAI PRASADA RAO, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASSITANT (CURRENTLY PLACED UNDER SUSPENSION), R/O. FLAT.NO.407, ABHAYA RESIDENCY, BHAGYANAGAR 4TH LANE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PVS ICON BUILDINGS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 5. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 2 6. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, KANDUKUR,SPSR NELLORE 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in not initiating and concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to the suspension order in Roc.No.691/2024(Pts)A4 dated 09.10.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, despite lapse of sixteen (16) months from the date of suspension, despite the clarification sought by the 4th respondent vide Roc.No.691/2024(Pts)A4 dated 14.08.2025 for reinstatement of petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 16, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, Consequentially direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service, pending conclusion of enquiry and to pass such 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 may be pleased to direct Respondent Nos.2 to 4, to consider the representations of petitioner dated 06.12.2025, 22.12.2025 & 21.01.2026 for issuing clarification orders pursuant to Roc.No.691/2024(Pts)A4 dated 14.08.2025 issued by the 4th respondent for reinstatement of petitioner into service pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DODDAKA HARSHA VARDHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings even after the inquiry report dated 09.10.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading for filing the Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant (J,A) on compassionate grounds in the office of District Panchayat Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District vide proceedings dated 27.08.2018 by the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the petitioner had joined in the above said office. Thereafter vide proceedings dated 22.09.2024, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Junior Assistant at the office Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kandukur, he joined the said post on 01.10.2024. While things stood thus, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without calling for any explanation from the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 09.10.2024 placing him under suspension until the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings as per Rule 8 of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 alleging that the petitioner committed certain irregularities during the transfers of Panchayat Secretary Grade-V and Grade-VI while he was working at the District Panchayat Office, Ongole, Prakasam District. Therefore, the order dated 09.10.2024, issued by the 3rd respondent is contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after a period of five months pursuant to the directions issued by the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent prepared draft articles of charges vide charge memo dated 03.06.2025 for holding a common enquiry under Rule 24 of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 wherein 3rd respondent framed four articles against the petitioner. He further submits despite the lapse of sixteen months, the respondents have not initiated any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the respondents have not revoked the suspension order or reviewed the suspension order 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.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted basing on the general instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 29.02.2024; according to the said instructions, the order of suspension against the Government employee shall be reviewed at the end of every six months and the same has been reduced to four months and the outer limit which was earlier 5 two years from the date has been reduced to one year, but in the instant case, six months have been lapsed. So far the respondents have not either reviewed or revoked the suspension of the petitioner. 5. Reply to the said contention, the learned Government Pleader has requested short time to pass appropriate orders as per G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 29.02.2024. 6. Considering the said submission and on perusal of the instructions issued by the Government, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents more specifically the 3rd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 29.02.2024 and pass appropriate orders on the explanation/representation dated 05.06.2025, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. 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. 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH 82 WRIT PETITION No.6697 OF 2026 Date:10.03.2026 Gk