APHC010617212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 31804/2025 Between: 1. B VISWANATHAM, S/O.LATE RAMARAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER-1, GAJUWAKA, GAJUWAKA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIDYA BHAVAN, VENKATADRI TOWERS, ATMAKUR (V), MANGALAGIRI (M), GUNTUR (DIST) 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION ZONEI, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 or direction more 2 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 3RD respondent vide File No.RJDSE/135/2025-RJD- VSP-CSE, dated 11.11.2025 suspending the petitioner from Mandal Educational Officer-I, is as illegal, arbitrary Highhanded and violation of Article 14 AND 21 of Constitution of India and also against the ARCS (CC AND A) Rules 1991, and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Mandal Educational Officer- 1, Gajuwaka, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District by setting aside the order passed by the 3RD respondent vide File No.RJDSE/135/2025-RJD-VS P- CSE, dated 11.11.2025 and pass such other orders. 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 to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Mandal Educational Officer-1, Gajuwaka, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District by suspending the order passed by the 3RD respondent vide File No.RJDSE/135/2025 -RJD- VSP-CSE, dated 11.11.2025 pending writ petition in this Hon’ble Court and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.31804 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the Order passed by Respondent No.3 vide File No.RJDSE/135/2025-RJD-VSP-CSE, dated 11.11.2025 suspending the Petitioner from service as Mandal Educational Officer, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts in brief are as follows; The Petitioner while working as Mandal Educational Officer Grade-I was suspended from service vide impugned orders with regard to allegations i.e., i) Abnormal delay for submission of proposal of death benefits of deceased teacher, even several requests made by the dependents; ii) Humiliation and harassment of lady teachers; iii) A delay is observed in sanction of AAS Scale of teacher without any valid reason; and iv) Utilization of the services of teachers for non-educational activities; and v) delay in release of Samagra Shiksha funds towards to schools. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana would submit that a Charge-Memorandum was also issued and there is no requirement to continue the Petitioner under suspension. 4 The learned counsel further submits the purpose of keeping the employee under suspension is to ensure that the preliminary investigations are not hampered by his interference and since a departmental enquiry is initiated against the Petitioner, the question of interference in the preliminary enquiry would not arise and the Petitioner should be reinstated into service. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education Sri Chall Srinivas appearing for the Respondents would submit that the allegations against the Petitioner are grave in nature and the reinstatement of the Petitioner would not be appropriate at this stage. 5. Heard the counsels. 6. Normally, the power of suspension is exercised to keep the delinquent away from the preliminary enquiries, so that the delinquent would not scuttle the enquiry. In the present case, though the allegations against the Petitioner are grave in nature that per se may not be construed to continue the Petitioner under suspension for all times, more so, after issuance of Charge-Memorandum. 7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions; 5 (i) The Respondent-authorities shall consider the requirement of continuance of the Petitioner under suspension in the light of issuance of the Charge-Memorandum dated 14.11.2025 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (ii) No order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 07.01.2026 IS 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.31804 of 2025 Dated: 07.01.2026 IS