APHC010376532026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 20101/2026 Between: 1. K. V. PRASAD, S/O K. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR C.S. PURAM MANDAL, C.S. PURAM, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, ANDHRA PRADESH, 1ST AND 3RD FLOORS, APIIC BUILDING, AUTONAGAR, NEAR NRI HOSPITAL, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503 3. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT, MARKAPURAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 523316 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -523230 ...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 2 may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.A1/e.7455/2026 dated 18.07.2026 placing the Petitioner under suspension as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of Union of India and Anr. vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013 16 SCC 147) and State of Orissa vs Bimal Kumar Mohanty (AIR 1994 SC 2296) and consequently set aside the same by directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service 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 pleasedto suspend the operation of proceedings in Rc.A1/e.7455/2026 dated 18.07.2026 issued by the 3'^'^ respondent by directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.20101 of 2026 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.3 in issuing proceedings vide Rc.A1/e.7455/2026, dated 18.07.2026 and placing the Petitioner under suspension, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner is working as Deputy Tahsildar in Markapuram district. While so, Respondent No.3 effected transfers vide proceedings, dated 04.06.2026 and the Petitioner was directed to report in the office of the Collector, Markapuram until further orders. The said communication was received by the Petitioner on 07.06.2026. On 08.06.2026, the Petitioner attended the office of Respondent No.3 and experienced severe chest pain, informed the same to Respondent No.4 to proceed for emergency medical treatment and requested to grant leave from 08.06.2026 to 07.07.2026. 3. However, on 17.06.2026, a show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner as to why departmental action should not be initiated against him for unauthorized absence, for which the Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 19.06.2026. While the explanation submitted by the Petitioner is pending for consideration, the impugned order of 4 suspension, dated 18.07.2026 is passed against him. Hence, the Writ Petition came to be filed. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent- Authorities issued a show-cause notice with respect to unauthorized absence by Petitioner, calling for explanation from him, but, the impugned order of suspension was passed, without reference to the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, unwantedly using the power of suspension. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the Petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for a period of more than one month and, therefore, the impugned order of suspension cannot be faulted. 6. Heard the counsels. 7. Considering the submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions:- (i) The Respondent No.3 is directed to examine the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, taking into consideration the medical records produced by him and the reasons assigned for his unauthorized absence, and thereafter to re-examine the impugned order of 5 suspension, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two 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 standclosed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 23.07.2026 chs 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 94 WRIT PETITION No.20101 of 2026 Dated:23.07.2026 chs