APHC010639812023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 32957/2023 Between: 1. G.DORA BABU, S/O G.MANOHAR, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC LECTURER IN AEIE, SGPR GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC, AT B.TANDRAPADU, KUMOOL ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING , 214, 5TH BLOCK, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522503 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, A.P., D.NO. 11-307, GKRUDADRI KK TOWERS, LAKSHMI NARASIMHA COLONY, SERVICE ROAD, NEAR DR. YSR AROGYA SREE HEALTH CARE TRUST, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522503 3. THE PRINCIPAL, SGPR GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC, AT B.TANDRAPADU, KUMOOL. ...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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein more particularly the 2nd and 3rd imposing the minor punishment of Censure vide respondents herein in impugned ProcNo.G/10863/2018, dated 1-3-2023 and consequential recovery of subsistence allowances which were paid during the suspension period vide Memo. No.C/312/2015, dated 6-6-2023 and fixation of recovery installments vide Rc.NO.A/Salary Recovery/2023-24, dated 15-11- 2023 are highly illegal, arbitrary and also in violation of Rule 20 of CCA Rules and also contrary to the F.R. 53(l)(ii) of AP Fundamental Rules and consequential the Hon’ble court may pleased to set aside the impugned punishment order dated 1-3- 2023 and all consequential proc. dated 6-6-2023 and 15-11-2023 with a further direction to treat the suspension period from 30-10-2018 to 9-3-2020 (497 day) as on duty with all consequential benefits and may pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 recovery of subsistence allowance which were paid during the suspension period as per F.R.53 [I][ii] vide impugned Memo. No.C/312/2015, dated 6-6-2023 and consequential proc. No.C/312/2015, dated 6-6-2023 and consequential proc. Rc.NO.A/Salary Recovery/2023-24, dated 15-11-2023, pending disposal of the writ petition and may pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 23.12.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 and dismiss the W.P.No.32957 of 2023 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R TAGORE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III (AP) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “…pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein more particularly the 2nd and 3rd imposing the minor punishment of Censure vide respondents herein in impugned ProcNo.G/10863/2018, dated 1-3-2023 and consequential recovery of subsistence allowances which were paid during the suspension period vide Memo.No.C/312/2015, dated 6-6-2023 and fixation of recovery installments vide Rc.NO.A/Salary Recovery/2023-24, dated 15-11-2023 are highly illegal, arbitrary and also in violation of Rule 20 of CCA Rules and also contrary to the F.R. 53(l)(ii) of AP Fundamental Rules and consequential the Hon’ble court may pleased to set aside the impugned punishment order dated 1-3-2023 and all consequential proc. dated 6-6-2023 and 15-11-2023 with a further direction to treat the suspension period from 30-10- 2018 to 9-3-2020 (497 day) as on duty with all consequential benefits and may pass…” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner while working as Lecturer in AEIE at SGPR, Government Polytechnic at Kurnool, placed under suspension, on 30.10.2018, on the ground that the petitioner did not follow the instructions to record the attendance through biometric and was manual signing attendance. The said suspension period was continued till 09.03.2020 and later he was reinstated into service. Thereupon, the respondents have not issued charge memo and without even framing charges, straightaway have imposed punishment of censure in Proc.No.G/10863/2018 dated 01.03.2023. 3. For reference, the relevant portion of impugned punishment of censure is extracted hereunder: 6. After careful examination of the matter, the Director of Technical Education has decided to impose punishment of award of “Censure” to Sri G.Dora Babu, Lecturer in AEIE, SGPR Government of Andhra Pradesh. Polytechnic, Kurnool as per APCs rules, 1991. 7. The Director of Technical Education hereby regularize the suspension period of Sri G.Dora Babu, Lecturer of AEIE, SGPR Govt. Polytechnic, Kurnool i.e., from 30.10.2018 to 09.03.2020 for 497 days by granting HPL & EL (on private affairs) up to 62 days from the date of his suspension i.e., 30.10.2018 and the remaining period of suspension i.e., from 31.12.2018 to 09.03.2020 for 435 days is treated as EOL on Private affairs. 4. Aggrieved by the said order referred above, the present Writ Petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, ultimately the said proceedings ended in imposing minor penalty like censure and treating the suspension period of 497 days as ‘not on duty’ and adjusting the said 497 days has HPL & EL (private affairs) upto 62 days and entered the remaining period as extraordinary leave. Consequent upon the same, the respondents have issued proceedings dated 06.06.2023 vide Memo.No.C/312/2015 for recovery of subsistence allowance for the period for 435 days EOL period of Rs.4,70,028/- and granting installments for such recovery vide proceedings dated 15.11.2023, will amounts to major penalty against the petitioner without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under Rule 23 of CCA Rules. 6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on G.O.Ms.No.238, General Administration (Services. C) Department, dated 07.04.1992, wherein, it is stated as follows: Amendment In Appendix-VI to the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963, for instruction 19 of the following shall be added at the end, namely: “(iii) Where the departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for the imposition of a major penalty finally end with the imposition of a minor penalty the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified and the employee concerned shall, therefore, be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order under F.R.54-B” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed his reliance on the order of this Court in Ch.Vara Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others1, at para No.8, it is held as follows: “…8. Under those circumstances, in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that treating the period of suspension as not on duty, while imposing a punishment of censure in the disciplinary proceedings, will lead to imposing a major punishment, as such, the action of the disciplinary authority in treating the period of suspension as not on duty is unreasonable and against good conscience. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.06.2019 is liable to be set aside…” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on a decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad in A.V.Vinod Kumar v. Executive Committee of the Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi and another2, wherein at Para No.10, it is stated as follows: “…10. Censure is a minor punishment something like a warning to be careful in future. In fact, in the order dated 24-12-1991, it was stated that a lenient view in the matter was taken to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to improve his behavior and to be careful in his work in future. While holding so, treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’, cannot be said to have bene done in good faith and good conscience. The censure itself is a punishment of minor nature. To treat the period of suspension as not on duty is a severe punishment, by which the petitioner is denied continuity of service for the purpose of seniority, promotion etc. Therefore, the though the disciplinary authority has got power, such power, in this case, was not exercised reasonably and no reasonable person could have treated the period of suspension as not on duty while imposing the minor punishment of censure…” 9. He also placed his reliance on the decision of High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad in Vanam Srinivasulu vs. The State of Telangana and another3, at para No.12, it is held that: “…12. The instant case is better footing than that case, as there is no punishment as per TSCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 and the impugned order passed contrary to the Circular Memo No.60897/Ser.C/1999 dated 12.11.1999. Once the charge was not proved and further action dropped by the competent authority, the question of treating the suspension period as eligible leave does not arise and the respondents have to treat the suspension period of the petitioner from 1 W.P.No.19390 of 2020 2 2007 (5) ALD 445 3 W.P.No.20019 of 2021 27.12.2016 to 10.09.2017 as spent on-duty for all purposes and the impugned order is liable to be set aside…” 10. By relying on the decisions referred above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a major penalty is proposed and finally termed to be a minor penalty, the period of suspension cannot be treated as ‘not on duty’ and the same has to be treated as ‘on duty’, otherwise, it amounts to imposition of major penalty. 11. In the instant case, the petitioner was placed under suspension for 497 days and ultimately a minor penalty of censure was imposed and treated the entire period of suspension as ‘not on duty’ and adjusted the said period against his Half Pay Leave and Earned Leave. The remaining period was treated as extraordinary leave, which cause severe financial loss to the petitioner and also initiated proceedings for recovery of the subsistence allowance paid during the suspension period, would definitely amounts to major punishment. Without conducting proper enquiry and without issuing charge memo, such major penalty cannot be imposed. 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III, reiterating the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit, submitted that the recovery proceedings were initiated pursuant to the impugned memo. However, this Court, by order dated 23.12.2023, granted an interim order staying the operation of Memo No. C/312/2015, dated 06.06.2023, until further orders. He further submits that the other period treated as leave and there is no justification in challenging the said proceedings and prays to dismiss this Writ Petition. 13. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered view that, the proceedings issued by the respondent authorities in treating the period of suspension of 497 days as ‘not on duty’, and also initiating the proceedings for recovery would amounts to major penalty, which is contrary to the punishment of censure imposed by the competent authority. 14. Considering the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration of the G.O.Ms.No.238, General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 07.04.1992, where the departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for the imposition of major penalty finally end with imposition of a minor penalty, the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified and the employee concerned shall, therefore, be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order under F.R.54-B. 15. In view of the above, the impugned orders, treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’ and consequential proceedings of recovery as well as converting installments are unsustainable. 16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The proceedings vide Proc.No.G/10863/2018, dated 01.03.2023 and consequential recovery of subsistence allowances which were paid during the suspension period vide Memo.No.C/312/2015, dated 06.06.2023 and fixation of recovery of installments vide Rc.No.A/Salary Recovery/2023-24, dated 15.11.2023, are hereby set aside. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders granted earlier if any, also shall stand closed. ________________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Dated: 06.08.2026 M K K 142 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Writ Petition No. 32957 of 2023 Date: 06.08.2026 M K K