APHC010359382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 18430/2025 Between: 1. K.LINGA RAO,, S/O.ANJANEYULU, AGED 57 YEARS, WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR 0/0. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALANADU, PALANADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , REVENUE(VIGILANCE-VI) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS ,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , TRANSPORT, ROADS,AND BUILDINGS, DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS ,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT AP, 3RD FLOOR,NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, PN BUS STATION,VIJAYAWADA,NTR 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 to issue writ or order more in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the punishment of stoppage of two increments 2 without cumulative effect passed by the 1st respondent through G.O.Rt. No.340 Revenue(Vigilance-VI) dated 23.4.2025, as being arbitrary and illegal, contrary to Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, violative of principles of natural justice, devoid of evidence, and a non-speaking order not supported by any reasoning and accordingly set aside G.O.Rt. No. 340 Revenue(Vigilance-VI) dated 23.04.2025, in so far as petitioner, by duly extending the benefit of the final orders passed by its Honorable Court in WP No- 14014/2025 dated 17.06.2025, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 please to SUSPEND the punishment of stoppage of two increment without cumulative effect passed by the 1^‘ respondent through G.O.Rt. No. 340 Revenue(Vigilance-VI) dated 23.04.2025,in so far as petitioner, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K R SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order i to declaring the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect passed by the 1st respondent through G.O.Rt. No.340 Revenue (Vigilance-VI) dated 23.4.2025, as being arbitrary and illegal, contrary to Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, violative of principles of natural justice, devoid of evidence, and a non-speaking order not supported by any reasoning and accordingly set aside G.O.Rt.No.340 Revenue (Vigilance-VI) dated 23.4.2025, in so far as petitioner, by duly extending the benefit of the final orders passed by its Honorable Court in WP No- 14014/2025 dated 17.06.2025, and pass….” 2. Heard Mr. K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the ground for imposition of such punishment for which the respondent authorities have not given any findings except extracting the charges and the enquiry report. The said action is contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically directed the competent authority, while considering the enquiry report, has to give specific findings with regard to charges, basis of the enquiry and reasons. Otherwise it vitiates the proceedings. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India1 and the Judgment of this court in Nannam Chinna Reddiah vs. 1 (1990) 4 SCC 594 4 State of Andhra Pradesh and others2 the Court has also considered the procedure contemplated under Rule 21 of A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Learned counsel further relied on the orders dated 17.6.2025 passed by this Court in an identical matter in W.P.No.14014 of 2025. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the observations made by this Court in the above said two orders, the impugned orders in G.O.Rt.No.648 dated 07.6.2019, in so far as the punishment is concerned, is set aside remanding the matter to the respondent no.1 to re-consider the issue once again and pass appropriate orders by giving findings and reasons. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH RD 29.01.2026. 2 2025 SCC OnLine AP 1945 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.18430 OF 2025 29.01.2026 RD