APHC010186552004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13792 of 2004 Bench Sr.No:-34 [3506] P.Balaji ...Petitioner Vs. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy (Serv.A2) Dept. and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Sri A.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri V .JAGAPATHI Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Sri VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL, Sri P LAXMA REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO), GP FOR ENERGY, GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 29th January 2026 ORDER: Present writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “…issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Letter No.155/Ser.A2/97-14, dated 16.03.2004, issued by the 1st Respondent and as well as the consequential order issued by the 1st Respondent and as well as the consequential order issued by the 3rd respondent in Memo.No. CGM/HRD/DS/AS.III/PO/DC/ D.No.490/04, dated 19.07.2004, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, set aside the same and with all other consequential benefits, monetary and otherwise and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case….” 2 CGR, J. W.P. No.13792 of 2004 2. Petitioner while working as Assistant Engineer (Operations) at Paipalle Section, Chittoor District, in relation to one of the incidents that has occurred within his jurisdiction concerning re-connection of an agricultural connection, a case came to be registered on account of ACB trap laid against the erring officers involved. In the course of investigation, the writ petitioner was summoned as one of the witnesses to the incident and his statement was accordingly recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Eventually, a charge sheet came to be laid and the case got numbered as C.C.No.3 of 1998 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at Nellore. The petitioner was shown as prosecution witness as L.W.3. The trial in the case ultimately ended in acquittal, by judgment, dated 20.10.2000. The officers who were charged with offences of receiving illegal gratification, therefore, got acquitted. One of the officers, who has been acquitted so in the proceedings, who was also initiated with disciplinary proceedings, later came to be reinstated, however, he was denied the service benefits during the same period, resultantly, he preferred W.P. No.11425 of 2004 before this Court. 3. Further, even with respect to the petitioner as the criminal case ended in acquittal, pointing out that it was on account of the petitioner’s inaction in cooperating with the prosecution, he was also proceeded with disciplinary action. The said proceedings ultimately have ended in award of punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. 3 CGR, J. W.P. No.13792 of 2004 Later, the said punishment, at the instance of Government, came to be revised by passing a fresh order altering the punishment to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is preferred. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds those that were urged in the writ petition, also has placed on record copy of the order, dated 06.11.2025, passed by this Court in W.P.No.11425 of 2004, which related to the accused namely D.Padmanabha Naidu, who was implicated in ACB trap case and eventually, got acquitted by the competent criminal Court, to contend that when the punishment that was imposed in favour of the said writ petitioner itself has been withdrawn on account of acquittal in criminal case, the order of punishment imposed against the petitioner cannot be sustained. It is also contended that the writ petitioner, in fact, did participate in the criminal trial, however, the charge against him was that he did not effectively give evidence, the same, by itself, would not constitute any misconduct on his part to initiate disciplinary proceedings. 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 opposed the aforesaid submissions. 4 CGR, J. W.P. No.13792 of 2004 7. On perusal of the impugned proceedings and as well as the criminal court record, it appears that the trial in criminal case ended in acquittal essentially on account of the de facto complainant being hostile in the trial, but not attributable to the writ petitioner, who was one of the prosecution witnesses therein. At any rate, since this Court has already expressed its opinion in W.P.No.11425 of 2004 and allowed the same, the present writ petition has to succeed. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 16.03.2004, passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential order, dated 19.07.2004, issued by the 3rd respondent are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to extend all consequential benefits to the writ petitioner, if not otherwise paid. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:29.01.2026. cs