APHC010216582026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3603] WEDNESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 810 OF 026 & WRIT PETITION NO: 17016/2020 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set-aside the order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27439 of 2021 dated 17.09.2026 and pass Between: 1. ADIKAVI NANNAYA UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. PIN -533296 ...APPELLANT AND 1. N SURYA RAGHAVENDRA, S/o Sri Rama Sarma, Aged about 42 years, Occ Assistant Professor, R/o. D.No 22-5-12/28, Veerabhadrapuram, East Godavari District. Pin -533105 ...RESPONDENT IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 pleased to condone the delay of 186 days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order dated 17-09-2025 passed in W.P.No.27439 of 2021 in the interest of Justice and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the order 17.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.27439 of 2021 pending disposal of the present Writ Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GADDE KOTI NAGULU SC For Adikavi nannaya University Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 17016/2020 Between: 1. N.SURYA RAGHAVENDRA, S/O. SRI RAMA SARMA, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, R/O. D.NO. 22-5-12/28, VEERABHADRAPURAM, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ADIKAVI NANNAYA UNIVERSITY, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District Rep. by its Registrar. ...RESPONDENT 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in constituting the Enquiry Commission in pursuant to the Memorandum vide Memo No.AKNU/Estt./2019-20/01, dt.04-12-2019 and proceeding with the enquiry before commencing the trial in Criminal case arising in Cr.No.489/2019 on the file of the Rajanagaram police station, Rajahmahendravaram as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions prescribed under A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the Memorandum vide Memo No.AKNU/Estt./2019-20/01, dt.04-12-2019 issued by the respondent including the conduct of enquiry by the Enquiry Commission pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 08-10-2020 in W.P.No.17016/2020, and dismiss the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GADDE KOTI NAGULU SC For Adikavi nannaya University The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AT AMARAVATI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 810 OF 026 & WRIT PETITION NO: 17016 OF 2020 Common Judgment : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Ramesh) The present W.P.No.17016 of 2020 is filed assailing the notice dated 04.12.2019, which reads as follows: “Based on material evidence and the report of the Fact finding committee Sri N.Surya Raghavendra, Assistant Professor, Department of English is directed to submit his reply that why disciplinary action cannot be inititated against him on the allegations of “Sexual abuse, verbal abuse, indecent behavior, mental harassment, threatening the students” by the students of M.A.English, Adikavi Nannaya University, Rajamahendravaram.” 2. Surprisingly, this Court has stayed the enquiry vide order dated 08.10.2020. On a perusal of the writ petition, it clearly demonstrates that the impugned proceedings/memo/notice is only a notice indicating/contemplating to initiate disciplinary proceedings for certain allegations. Though the notice has been issued on 14.10.2019, even after seven years, the university could not be able to proceed and conclude the disciplinary proceedings. 1. The present W.P. No.17016 of 2020 is filed assailing the notice dated 04.12.2019, which reads as follows: "Based on the material evidence and the report of the Fact-Finding Committee, Sri N. Surya Raghavendra, Assistant Professor, Department of English, is directed to submit his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him on the allegations of 'sexual abuse, verbal abuse, indecent behaviour, mental harassment, and threatening the students' made by the students of M.A. English, Adikavi Nannaya University, Rajamahendravaram." 2. Surprisingly, this Court, by order dated 08.10.2020, stayed the enquiry. A perusal of the writ petition clearly demonstrates that the impugned proceedings are only in the nature of a show-cause notice contemplating initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the basis of certain allegations. Although the notice was issued on 04.12.2019, even after nearly seven years, the University has not been able to proceed with and conclude the disciplinary proceedings. 3. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner filed a separate writ petition, namely W.P. No.27439 of 2021, assailing the suspension order dated 14.10.2019. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: "Considered the submissions. Pursuant to the reply of the petitioner that the respondent has kept the proceedings in abeyance, and the order of suspension has been extended from time to time. The petitioner, having contended before the respondent that the issuance of a charge memo would amount to contempt of the orders passed by this Court, cannot now contend that the respondent is unjustly extending the order of suspension contrary to G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008. Having regard to the same, this Court is of the view that the respondent cannot be blamed for extending the suspension order, since it is the petitioner who has taken the stand that conducting the departmental enquiry would violate the interim order dated 08.10.2020 passed in W.P.No.17016 of 2020. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent to complete the disciplinary enquiry within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner shall cooperate with the respondent in conducting the enquiry proceedings. Pending completion of the disciplinary proceedings, and in the light of G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008, subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent shall reinstate the petitioner into service." 4. Even thereafter, the respondent-University was unable to proceed with and conclude the disciplinary proceedings as directed. Left with no other option, the University preferred the present Writ Appeal. 5. During the hearing of the Writ Appeal, it was brought to the notice of this Court that W.P. No.17016 of 2020 was still pending. Upon a perusal of the impugned notice dated 04.12.2019, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, as it merely challenges a show-cause notice contemplating initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, W.P. No.17016 of 2020 stands dismissed, and consequently, the interim order dated 08.10.2020 also stands vacated. 6. In W.A. No.810 of 2026, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University submitted that the University is ready to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that the University had issued a notice scheduling the enquiry on 24.11.2025, but the petitioner failed to cooperate solely on account of the interim stay granted in W.P. No.17016 of 2020. It is submitted that if the petitioner extends his cooperation, the disciplinary proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously in accordance with law. 7. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, in compliance with the directions issued in W.P. No.27439 of 2021, the appellant/respondent has already reinstated the petitioner into service. 8. In view of the directions issued in W.P. No.27439 of 2021, the respondent authorities are directed to conclude the disciplinary enquiry within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if, for any reason, the petitioner fails to cooperate with the enquiry, it shall be open to the respondent-University to place him under suspension from the date of such non-cooperation, in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed. 3. While pending the said writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court in filing a separate Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.27439 of 2021 assailing the suspension orders dated 14.10.2019, the said writ petition was considered and disposed of with the following directions: Considered the submissions. Pursuant to the reply of the petitioner that the respondent has kept the proceedings in abeyance, and the order of suspension has been extended from time to time. Petitioner having replied to the respondent that the issuance of Charge Memo would amount to Contempt of the Court Orders, cannot now agitate that the respondent is unjustly extending the suspension order, contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008. Having regard to the same, this Court is of the view that the respondent cannot be blamed for extending suspension order, since it is the petitioner who has stated that the conducting of departmental enquiry is in violation of the Court Order in the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.17016 of 2020 dated 08.10.2020, if the respondent was to proceed further with the disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent to complete the disciplinary enquiry within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner shall cooperate with the respondent in conducting the enquiry proceedings. Pending disposal of the same, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008, and subject to outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent shall reinstate the petitioner into service. 4. Even the respondent-university is unable to proceed and conclude with the disciplinary proceedings as directed above and as the university is left with no option, they filed a separate Writ Appeal. 5. While considering the writ appeal, it was brought to the notice of this Court about pendency of W.P.No.17016 of 2020. On a perusal of the impugned notice dated 14.10.2019, this Court is of the firm opinion that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, as the same is filed questioning the notice for contemplating disciplinary proceedings. Hence, the W.P.No.17016 of 2020 is dismissed and subsequently, the interim order dated 08.10.2020 is disposed of. 6. In the W.A.No.810 of 2026, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the university has submitted that the university is ready to conclude the disciplinary proceedings and in fact the university has issued notice to schedule the disciplinary proceedings on 24.11.2025 but the petitioner has not cooperated only because of the stay in W.P.No.17016 of 2020. If the petitioner cooperates for concluding the disciplinary proceedings as directed by this Court in the impugned order, they are ready to conclude the disciplinary proceedings and reinstate the petitioner. 7. As the university has also brought to the notice of this Court in compliance to the orders in W.P.No.27439 of 2021, the appellant/respondent was already reinstated. 8. In view of the orders passed in W.P.No.27439 of 2021, the authorities are directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of three (03) months and it is needless to mention, if by any reason, petitioner not cooperates, he shall be placed under suspension from that day onwards. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed. ____________ D.RAMESH, J ____________________ ALAPATI GIRIDHAR, J Dated : 15.07.2026 TJN 141 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 810 OF 026 & WRIT PETITION NO: 17016 OF 2020 Dated: 15.07.2026 TJN HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 810 OF 026 & WRIT PETITION NO: 17016 OF 2020 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 15.7.2026 DR, J & AGD, J The Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are . (Vide Separate Common Judgment) _______ DR, J _______ AGD, J TJN