1 APHC010335632025 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: 17046/2025 Between: 1. P CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O.SIVANNA, AGED 41 YEARS, WORKING AS RSI, 0/0.14TH BATTALION APSP, ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS ,VEIAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RANGE-I APSP BATTALION, (HAC OF DIG RANGE II APSP BATTALION KURNOOL) ,AP,MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMANDANT, 14 TH BATTALION APSP, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K R SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.17046 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed declaring the punishment of postponement of one increment for one year with cumulative effect on his future increments and pension besides recovery of misappropriated amount of Rs.60,842.50 imposed by the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 11.03.2025 and communicated by the 3rd respondent vide orders dated 18.03.2025, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, „the Rules, 1991‟). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the objections filed by the petitioner. Vide impugned orders dated 11.03.2025, the disciplinary authority, merely by extracting the articles of charges, has passed the following order: “I have carefully gone through the entire OE records and further representation of the charged officer. The Inquiry 4 Authority had clearly established the guilt/role of the charged officer by holding the charges leveled against the charged officer as proved. Hence, I totally agreed with findings of the Inquiry Authority and I hold the charges are held proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, he be awarded with the penalty of “postpone of increment for one year with cumulative effect on his future increment and pension” besides the recovery of misappropriated amount of Rs.60,842.50 (Rupees sixty thousand eight hundred and forty two and fifty paisa). 4. The said orders are contrary to Rule 21 of the Rules, 1991. The said provision was considered by this Court in Nannam Chinna Reddiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1. Paragraph No.10 of the said order reads as under: "10. Plain reading of aforesaid Rule would go to show that after the enquiry report has been placed before the disciplinary authority, it is required to forward such report to the delinquent calling upon him to submit written representation or submission within fifteen days. Once such representation submitted, the disciplinary authority is mandated to consider the same and record its findings before further proceeding with the matter to formulate an opinion that, having regard to the said findings, the same would attract any of the penalties though specified in clauses (i) to (ix) of Rule 9 and pass order imposing such penalty. The sub-Rule (3) of Rule 21 used expression 1 2025 SCC OnLine AP 1945 5 'shall‟ and „its‟ meaning thereby it is mandatory on the part of disciplinary authority to consider the representation of delinquent and record findings of its own before proceeding to the next stage of sub-Rule (4) and (5). In other words, it is mandatory for the disciplinary authority to render specific findings on the representation and based go such findings as to whether the gravity of charges deserves penalties those specified under clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 9. It requires clear application of mind and consideration to the objections raised by delinquent, followed by reasons for such opinion." 5. With respect to recording of reasons, this Court has followed the observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India2, wherein it was held as under: “Thus, the impugned order since does not record any specific findings or reasons upon objective consideration, much less recording that it accepts the findings of enquiry officer and proceeds to arrive provisional decision to impose penalty is in the teeth of above judgments, does not stand scrutiny. Though disciplinary authority is not required to record and provide elaborate and exhaustive reasons, the order should reflect semblance of reasons, which is completely absent in the present case.” 6. Even in the instant case, on perusal of the impugned orders, it is seen that the respondents have not considered the 2 (1990) 4 SCC 594 6 objections filed by the petitioner and the disciplinary authority has also not given any reasons except for merely accepting the findings of the enquiry officer. 7. Considering the observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as well as this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders are contrary to Rule 21 of the Rules, 1991, as no specific reasons have been assigned by the disciplinary authority. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned orders dated 11.03.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and communicated by the 3rd respondent vide orders dated 18.03.2025 and remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration of the objections filed by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 06.03.2026 Ivd 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.17046 of 2025 Dated: 06.03.2026 Ivd