1 APHC010850072017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 38974 OF 2017 Between: 1. Agraharapu Lova Raju, S/o.A.Rama Rao, Occ: Talam Vadyakarudu, Sri Talupulamma Ammavari Devasthanam, Lova, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District. 2. Agraharapu Ramachandra Rao, S/o A. Rama Rao, Occ: DOLU Vadyakarudu, Sri Talupulamma Ammavari Devasthanam, Lova, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari Dist. A.P. 3. Agraharapu Ram Rao S/o A. Nukaiah, Occ: DWANI, Vadyakarudu, Sri Talupulamma Ammavari Devasthanam, Lova, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District. AP. ...Petitioners AND 1. Sri Talupulamma Ammavarim Devasthanam, Lova, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District, Rep. by its Executive Officer - PIN-533 401. 2. The Commissioner of Endowments Government of Andhra, Pradesh, Gollapudi, Krishna District. PIN-521 225 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal, Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist - 522 503., A.P. ...Respondents 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 appropriate writ or order or direction preferably one in the 2 nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the Respondent No.1 in not re-instating the Petitioners into service in view of non completion of the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioners within a period of 6 months as required under Rule 6(1) of the Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 as illegal, void besides hit by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and further direct the Respondents to re-instate the Petitioners into service with all consequential benefits IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 48348 OF 2017 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 Respondent No.1 to pay the full salary to the Petitioners from 28.07.2017 onwards forthwith, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioners: N GURU GOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: KOTESWARA RAO KAPPERA SC For Endowments The Court made the following order: 3 APHC010145592018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT CASE NO: 548 OF 2018 Between: 1. Agraharapu Lova Raju, Occ: TALAM Vadyakarudu, Sri Talupulamma Ammavari Devasthanam, Lova, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District. 2. Agraharapu Ramachandra Rao, Occ: DOLU Vadyakarudu, Sri Talupulamma Ammavari Devasthanam, Lova, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari Dist. A.P. 3. Agraharapu Ram Rao, Occ: DWANI Vadyakarudu, Sri Talupulamma Ammavari Devasthanam, Lova, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari Dist. AP. ...Petitioners AND 1. Sri S Chandra Sekhar, working as Assistant Commissioner and Executive Officer of Sri Talupulamma Ammavari Devasthanam, Lova, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District, PIN-533 401. ...Respondent Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to summon and punish the Respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts act for willful and wantonly violating the Orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 38974 of 2017 dated 11.12.2017 and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: KANAKA DURGA CHELLUBOYINA Counsel for the Respondent KOTESWARA RAO KAPPERA SC For Endowments The Court made the following order: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.38974 OF 2017 and C.C.No.548 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “……..to issue appropriate writ or order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the Respondent No.1 in not re-instating the Petitioners into service in view of non completion of the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioners within a period of 6 months as required under Rule 6(1) of the Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 as illegal, void besides hit by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and further direct the Respondents to re-instate the Petitioners into service with all consequential benefits and to pass…….” 2. When the matter is taken up, there is no representation for the petitioners, though the name of the counsel Ms.Ch.Kanaka Durga, was reflected in the cause list in the connected contempt case No.548 of 2018 and Sri K.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, appeared for the respondents. 3. The sum and substance of the writ petition is that the petitioners challenged the inaction on the part of the respondents in not reinstating 5 the petitioners into service and also non-completion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners within a period of six (06) months. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents temple Sri M.Koteswara Rao, forwarded the copy of the proceedings in R.C.No.A1/540/2016, dated 01.08.2021, where under the third respondent Temple authorities after completing the departmental proceedings against the petitioners on 20.06.2021, directed the petitioners to come and join in to their services in the Temple. Consequently, the petitioners joined in their respective services and they are now attending to their duties in the first respondent Temple. 5. By placing the said proceedings dated 01.08.2021 forwarded by the learned Standing Counsel on record, and also in view of the fact that all the petitioners are already joined in their services in the first respondent temple, this Court is of the considered view that no further orders are required to be passed in the instant writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. In view of closure of writ petition, the Contempt Case No.548 of 2018 is also closed as stated supra the interim orders dated 11.12.2007 has been complied. There 6 shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:07.03.2026 Rns 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.38974 of 2017 And C.C.No.548 of 2018 Date:07.03.2026 Rns