APHC010121752026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 6710/2026 Between: 1. MAJJI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. LATE PARAMESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE (PC-624) V TOWN 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. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522 503. 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 Officer's report dated 03.04.2023 by revoking the suspension orders, reinstating the Petitioner with all consequential benefits including back wages, regularizing the suspension period from 27.10.2010 to 19.10.2014 as on duty for all purposes granting notional promotion to the post of HC with effect from 12.11.2015 promoting against existing vacancies fixing seniority, re fixing pay and releasing all consequential monetary benefits and arrears…..” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that after he was transferred from Harbour Police Station, one Sara Chatterjee & Co., Visakhapatnam, represented by Sri S.R. Bandan, lodged a complaint dated 10.10.2010 alleging diversion of coal during transit from the Port to Fuel Factory at Parawada by certain employees. Based on the said complaint, two cases were registered in FIR Nos.117/2010 and 121/2010 on the file of Harbour Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 407, 408 and 120-B IPC against the said persons. Subsequently, on the basis of a confession made by Sri Late Vitanala Satyanarayana (A1), the petitioner was implicated as A11 and another police constable as A12. 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. It is submitted that a departmental enquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer, who, after examining the oral and documentary evidence under Rule 20 of the AP Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, submitted a report dated 03.04.2023 holding that the charges were not proved, noting lack of reliable evidence, procedural lapses in the preliminary enquiry and also taking note of the petitioner’s acquittal in the connected criminal case. The petitioner further submits that he had earlier filed W.P. No.29434 of 2022, which was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court by a common order dated 18.11.2025, holding that once departmental proceedings were initiated and an Enquiry Officer had submitted a report exonerating the delinquent employee, reopening the matter based on the preliminary enquiry is legally unsustainable, and accordingly the impugned proceedings were set aside. In view of the said order and the Inquiry Officer’s report exonerating him, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 26.11.2025 seeking consequential reliefs including regularization of the suspension period from 27.10.2010 to 19.10.2014 as duty, grant of notional promotion to the post of Head Constable with effect from 12.11.2015, fixation of seniority and pay, and release of arrears. However, despite lapse of considerable time, the respondents have neither considered the said representation nor implemented the directions of this Hon’ble Court, which action is stated to be arbitrary and illegal. 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 26.11.2025 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 11.03.2026 klk 35 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 6710/2026 11.03.2026 klk