APHC010027862026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1894/2026 Between: 1. SD ABDUL KARIMULLAH, S/O. SYED ABDUL SALAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC OFFICE SUPERINTENDENTIN THE O/O. THE COMMANDANT, 6TH BATTALION, APSP, R/O. FIAT NO.411, SAL SHARATHI APARTMENTS, KOPPURAVURI ROAD, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI - 522233 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522503. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, , LAW AND ORDER, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522503 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH COASTAL ZONE, GUNTUR RANGE, GUNTUR - 522004. 5. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OCTOPUS, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522503. 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DCRS, GUNTUR URBAN, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522004. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS, J W.P.No.1894 of 2026 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein, more particularly Respondent No.2 in issuing Proceedings vide C.No.1379/T4/2025 dated 23.12.2025(served on 12.01.2025) thereby re-conducting/re-opening Departmental Proceedings against the Petitioner after a lapse of 10 years, even though the Disciplinary Proceedings have been dropped against the Petitioner in the year 2017 itself, without any reason and authority or jurisdiction as being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and amounting to colorable exercise of power and contrary to the Rules of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the Proceedings vide C.No.1879/T4/2025 dated 23.12.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent herein and 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 stay all further proceedings in furtherance of Proceedings vide C.No.1879/T4/2025 dated 23.12.2025 (served on 12.01.2025) issued by the 2"d Respondent thereby re-conducting/re-opening0 Departmental Proceedings against the Petitioner after a lapse of 10 years pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 VS, J W.P.No.1894 of 2026 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents herein,more particularly Respondent No.2 in issuing Proceedings vide C.No.1379/T4/2025 dated 23.12.2025 (served on 12.01.2025) thereby re-conducting/re-opening Departmental Proceedings against the Petitioner after a lapse of 10 years, even though the Disciplinary Proceedings have been dropped against the Petitioner in the year 2017 itself, without any reason and authority or jurisdiction as being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and amounting to colorable exercise of power and contrary to the Rules of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the Proceedings vide C.No.1879/T4/2025 dated 23.12.2025 issued by the 2ndRespondent hereinand to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as follows: a) The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1988 and subsequently promoted as Office Superintendent on 30.04.2012. While so, in the year 2016, when he was workingin Guntur District, one VakaMadhavi lodged a complaint against him before Nagarampalem Police Station, which was registered as Crime No.321 of 2016 dated 07.10.2016 for the offences punishable under Section 354-A IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. Pursuant thereto, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the 6threspondent by examining seven witnesses and a report dated 07.10.2016 was submitted, wherein it was observed that the 4 VS, J W.P.No.1894 of 2026 complainant bore grudge against the petitioner due to workplace politics and that the statements of the other witnesses did not support the allegations made by the complainant. b) Thereafter, on 08.12.2016, the husband of the said VakaMadhavi lodged another complaint before the 4threspondentalleging that his wife,VakaMadhavi, under the influence and instigation of the thenP.C.Venkat Rao, was maintaining an illicit relationship and had threatened him with dire consequences. He further alleged that the said P.C. Venkat Rao had instigated his wife to foist a false complaint against the petitioner. Basing on the said complaint, a further preliminary enquiry was conducted and a report dated 19.01.2017 was submitted recommending disciplinary action against VakaMadhavi and P.C. Venkata Rao. Thereafter, taking into consideration the preliminary enquiry reports dated 07.10.2016 and 19.01.2017, the 4threspondent deemed it fit to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide proceedings in C.No.04/PR/2017 ROC No.468/2017 dated 02.07.2017. c) It is further stated that the petitioner was subsequently acquitted in C.C.No.157 of 2017 vide judgment dated 21.07.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2808 of 2025 seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer with effect from 31.07.2021 and consequential promotion to the post of Administrative Officer with effect from 08.12.2022 on par with his immediate juniors. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 26.06.2025 by holding that the petitioner is entitled to be considered 5 VS, J W.P.No.1894 of 2026 for promotion with effect from 31.07.2021, i.e., the date on which promotions were effected for his juniors for the panel year 2020-2021. Further, the respondents were directed to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears of pay and other benefits for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion, by taking into consideration the outcome of criminal proceedings. d) As the said orders were not complied with by the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to file a contempt case against the respondents. It is alleged that, pending the contempt proceedings, respondent Nos.2 to 5 threatened the petitioner to withdraw the contempt case, failing which the old disciplinary proceedings would be reopened. Subsequently, the impugned proceedings dated 23.12.2025 came to be issued reopening the departmental proceedings against the petitioner after a lapse of nearly ten years.Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The 2ndrespondent has filed a counter affidavit, reiterating the facts as stated by the petitioner. However, it is stated as follows: a) Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2808 of 2025 on 26.06.2025, while preparing the panel of Office Superintendents fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officers for the panel year 2024-2025, the Inspector General of Police, South Coastal Zone, Guntur Range, was requested to furnish specific remarks regarding the disposal of 6 VS, J W.P.No.1894 of 2026 the Major P.R. initiated against the petitioner vide memodated 02.07.2017, as reflected in the character rolls already furnished. b) Accordingly, the Inspector General of Police, South Coastal Zone, Guntur Range,vide letter dated 14.10.2025, submitted a detailed report.On a perusal of the remarks and records furnished,it was observed that the Inspector General of Police, South Coastal Zone, Guntur Range, vide memo dated 07.11.2025, requested that a comprehensive view of the entire issue be taken and that the disciplinary proceedings decided by the then Inspector General of Policebe re-examined in accordance with the provisions of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. c) In response thereto, the Inspector General of Police, South Coastal Zone, Guntur Range, with reference to Rule 18 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, informed that the Office of the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, is competent to reopen the case and requested initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner. Considering the reports and records furnished, Articles of Charge were framed under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991videproceedings dated 23.12.2025, and the same were served on the petitioner under due acknowledgment on 12.01.2026. d) It is further stated that in the counter affidavitthat, although the allegations were prima facie established in the primary inquiry, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the Inspector General of Police, South Coastal Zone,Guntur Range.However, the disciplinary authority 7 VS, J W.P.No.1894 of 2026 without examining the merits of the case and solely considering the undated representation of the charged officer, passed orders dropping further action vide proceeding dated 02.07.2017. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents. 5. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed by the 2ndrespondent, it is an admitted fact that, initially, based on the complaint made by one VakaMadhavi, the preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and a report was submitted by the enquiry officer holding that the complainant bore grudge against the petitioner due to workplace politics and also that the statements of the other witnesses did not support the allegations made by the complainant, i.e.,VakaMadhavi. Thereafter, the husband of the said complainant lodged another complaint on 08.12.2016. Pursuant thereto, the 6threspondent conducted a further preliminary enquiry and submitted a report dated 19.01.2017 recommending disciplinary action against VakaMadhavi and P.C.Venkata Rao. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 4threspondent requesting that the disciplinary proceedings against him be dropped. Taking into consideration the findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry reports dated 07.10.2016 and 19.01.2017, the 4threspondent deemed it fit to drop the proceedings against the petitioner and also treated the period of suspension undergone by him as on duty vide proceedings dated 02.07.2017.Even C.C.No.157 of 2017, which was registered pursuant to the complaint lodged 8 VS, J W.P.No.1894 of 2026 against the petitioner, was dismissed, and the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges in the said case.The respondents, having remained silent since 2017, issued the impugned proceedings framing charges, which are nothing but the very same charges that had already been dropped earlier. This action appears to have been taken only because the petitioner filed W.P.No.2808 of 2025 before this Court seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer with all consequential benefits, which subsequently led to the filing of contempt proceedings. The same appears to be the reason for reopening the charges that had already been dropped against the petitioner vide impugned proceedings dated 23.12.2025.When the 4threspondent had already dropped the proceedings against the petitioner and treated the suspension period undergone by the charged officer as on duty, thereby entitling the petitioner to all consequential benefits, the respondents cannot now, reopen or review the very same charges which were dropped as early as in the year 2017. The same principle of law was also observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkand and Ors.,1wherein, the Hon’ble Court held as under: “27…..Therefore, in these circumstances, there is no justification for conducting a second enquiry on the very charges, which have been dropped earlier. Even through the principles of double jeopardy is not applicable, the law permits only disciplinary proceedings and not harassment. Allowing such practice is not in the interest of public service. In the circumstance, we cannot sustain the impugned order reverting the appellant to the lower post…” 1 Civil Appeal No.1458 of 2012 9 VS, J W.P.No.1894 of 2026 6. In view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the impugned proceedingsdated 23.12.2025 are liable to be set-aside. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings in C.No.1879/T4/2025 dated 23.12.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent.There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 05.05.2026 KGR