P a g e | 1 Date of reserved for orders : 18.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 03.09.2026 Date of uploading : 10.09.2026 APHC010495712023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 03rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 25703 OF 2023 Between: 1. P DHANARAJ, S/o. P. Devadas, aged about 60 years, Occ. Assistant Conservator of Forests, Biodiversity, Sunnipenta Project Tiger, Nandyal, Nandyal District, AP ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep.by its Special Chief Secretary, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology (Sec.IV) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Andhra Pradesh Guntur, Guntur District, 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing Proceedings No. 39723/ 2010/A and DC-3, dt.27-04-2022 wherein awarded a penalty of stoppage of one (1) increment with cumulative effect and P a g e | 2 consequential Memo No.1713/Sec.IV/A2/2022 dt.27-06-2023 of the 1st Respondent wherein rejected appeal made by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of APCS (CC and A) Rules, 1991 and consequently set aside the same and 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 to suspend the operation of Proceedings No. 39723/ 2010/A 86 DC-3, dt.27-04- 2022 of the 2nd Respondent and consequential Memo No.1713/ Sec.IV/A2/ 2022 dt.27-06-2023 of the 1st Respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: P a g e | 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 25703 OF 2023 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “…….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing Proceedings No.39723/2010/A and DC-3, dt.27-04-2022 wherein awarded a penalty of stoppage of one (1) increment with cumulative effect and consequential Memo No.1713/Sec.IV/A2/2022 dt.27-06-2023 of the 1st Respondent wherein rejected appeal made by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of APCS (CC and A) Rules, 1991 and consequently set aside the same…” 2. The facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition, are briefly set out hereunder: While the petitioner was working as Forest Range Officer, Badvel, in 2010, an enquiry was initiated pursuant to a news report regarding the alleged illicit transportation/missing of 25 Red Sanders logs. Petitioner submitted explanation contending that the logs were not belong to Badvel Range, that there was no loss to the Government, and that he had repeatedly requested funds for construction of the compound wall around the forest office where the seized property was stored. After a delay of nearly six years, a charge was framed alleging negligence. The Enquiry Officer held the charge proved, primarily on the premise that the Government would have suffered loss had the logs not been detected. Petitioner contends that the logs were subsequently accounted for and transported to the Central Godown without shortage. The disciplinary P a g e | 4 authority, by proceedings dated 27.04.2022, imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. Petitioner contends that his defence was not duly considered, the findings are based on assumptions, and the impugned orders are non-speaking and violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, he seeks setting aside of the disciplinary and appellate orders. 3. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit contending that 25 Red Sanders logs seized in forest offence cases and stored at the Forest Complex, Badvel, were found missing, for which a charge was framed against the petitioner on 01.11.2016 alleging dereliction of duty. Petitioner submitted his defence, attributing the incident to the absence of a compound wall and denying negligence. An enquiry was conducted in accordance with the A.P. CCA Rules, 1991, and the charge was held proved. After considering the enquiry report and the petitioner’s defence, the disciplinary authority, by proceedings dated 27.04.2022, imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, with impact on pension. The appellate authority, by order dated 27.06.2023, confirmed the penalty. It is further contended that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure, that the petitioner participated in the enquiry without objection, and that no procedural violation or mala fides were established. The appellate authority considered the evidence and passed a reasoned order. As custodian of the Range Office premises, he was responsible for ensuring their proper protection and issuing necessary instructions to subordinate staff. P a g e | 5 Recovery of logs pursuant to timely information does not negate his dereliction of duty. Hence, the impugned orders warrant no interference. 4. Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sameera Bokka, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Government Pleader for Services-I. 5. The charge memo contains a solitary charge alleging that the petitioner neglected to discharge his legitimate duties, which allegedly resulted in the theft / missing of 25 red sanders logs that had been seized in connection with forest offence cases and were stocked at the Forest Complex, Badvel. In respect of the said allegation, an enquiry was conducted. Enquiry Officer made an observation regarding non-residence of the charged officer at the headquarters and also held the charged officer responsible in relation to the alleged theft of 25 red sanders logs from the Forest Complex. 6. The charged officer/petitioner, while admitting that the said red sanders logs were subsequently recovered, contended that, as per the records, the recovery was made on the basis of information furnished by the Divisional Forest Officer, Proddatur (Wildlife), with the assistance of the police authorities. However, a reading of the entire enquiry report reveals that there is no material whatsoever to establish that the said logs were stolen from the particular Forest Complex at Badvel. The entire proceedings appear to have been initiated on the basis of news items published in daily newspapers, which reported that red sanders logs had been stolen either from the Badvel P a g e | 6 Forest Depot or from the Porumamilla Forest Depot. Further, in paragraph No.2 of the enquiry report, with regard to the allegation concerning the seizure of 25 logs pertaining to old cases of the Badvel Range by the Sidhout Range staff, the charged officer contended that pursuant to the instructions of Divisional Forest Officer, Proddatur (WL), he conducted an enquiry, which revealed that not even a single log pertaining to the old cases of the Badvel Range was found missing. The said fact was reported to the Divisional Forest Officer vide report dated 28.02.2010. Despite there being no material or evidence to establish that the said 25 logs were in fact pertaining to the Badvel Forest Depot, the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding against the petitioner, observing that, even if the missing logs were not from the Badvel Forest Depot, the petitioner had failed to curb the illegal transportation of red sanders logs within his jurisdiction. Based on the aforesaid findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force (Respondent No.2) issued a final notice to the petitioner. However, without duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner in response to the said final notice and by merely relying upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Respondent No.2 proceeded to impose a penalty upon the petitioner and accordingly ordered stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Government vide Memo No.1713/Sec.IV/A2/2022, dated 27.06.2023. However, the appellate authority confirmed the penalty imposed upon the P a g e | 7 petitioner, recording a finding that the burden was upon the charged officer to prove his innocence. 8. The petitioner’s specific contention is that, much prior to the alleged incident, he had repeatedly requested the competent authorities to take necessary measures for safeguarding the red sanders logs and had sought funds for construction of a compound wall around the Forest Office to protect the forest produce. In this regard, he addressed a letter dated 10.07.2009 and, even after the alleged incident, submitted a further representation dated 22.08.2010. However, no effective action was taken by the authorities. The petitioner had also submitted that he had taken all possible measures within his jurisdiction to prevent the theft. Significantly, the Enquiry Report does not disclose the specific logs allegedly stolen, nor does it establish which of the logs seized in different forest offence cases were found missing. Neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Presenting Officer elicited any evidence during the enquiry to establish the identity, particulars, or location of the allegedly stolen logs. Therefore, the allegation against the petitioner remains unsupported by cogent evidence. 9. In his explanation submitted to Respondent No.2, petitioner specifically stated that no disciplinary action had been taken against the subordinate officers who were also connected with the custody and safeguarding of the seized red sanders logs. The allegedly missing logs had already been recovered and the fact of such recovery had been reported to the DFO. Therefore, no financial loss was caused to the State exchequer. The police P a g e | 8 had neither registered a criminal case nor recovered the logs, and that there was no material establishing that petitioner was responsible for their alleged theft. Petitioner further submitted that more than 1,200 metric tonnes of red sanders logs and about 150 seized vehicles were stored at the Badvel Forest Complex without a compound wall or proper fencing. Despite these inadequate security arrangements, the petitioner had safeguarded the seized property throughout his tenure. These circumstances were not duly considered by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority before fixing responsibility solely upon the petitioner, while no action was taken against the other officers concerned. The Appellate Authority also failed to consider the material placed on record and erroneously proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was required to prove his innocence. The burden, however, was on the disciplinary authority to establish the charge against the petitioner with cogent and reliable evidence. The impugned orders, therefore, suffer from non-consideration of relevant material. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterated the contentions raised in the counter and submitted that the absence of financial loss to the Government does not absolve the petitioner of responsibility, as the theft of valuable red sanders logs was attributable to his failure to adequately safeguard them. It was further contended that the logs could be recovered only due to timely information furnished by third parties. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also submitted that judicial interference in disciplinary P a g e | 9 proceedings is warranted only where the findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. 11. As noticed above, Enquiry Officer failed to consider the steps taken by the petitioner to safeguard the red sanders logs, particularly his requests to the higher authorities for providing adequate protective measures, including construction of a compound wall or fencing around the Forest Office. Enquiry Officer also failed to consider the petitioner’s request addressed to the Divisional Forest Officer, Proddatur (Wildlife), seeking necessary funds for restoration of the disconnected electricity and for carrying out repairs to the quarters so as to make them fit for use as an office. The Divisional Forest Officer did not act upon the said request and subsequently directed that the office be shifted to the A.C.F., Badvel office. This material circumstance was also not considered while recording the findings against the petitioner. Further, the enquiry report does not disclose any cogent evidence establishing that the petitioner was responsible for the alleged theft of 25 red sanders logs. The report neither discloses the particular logs allegedly stolen nor establishes that they were in the custody of the petitioner or that the theft was attributable to any specific act or omission on his part. Thus, the finding fastening responsibility upon the petitioner is not supported by adequate evidence. 12. The material placed on record shows that Enquiry Officer also travelled beyond the scope of the charge framed against the petitioner by taking into consideration matters relating to his alleged failure to curb the illegal transportation of red sanders logs within his jurisdiction, which did not form P a g e | 10 part of the specific charge. Such matters could not have been made the basis for recording an adverse finding against the petitioner without affording him an opportunity to meet such an allegation. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be commensurate with the charge established against the petitioner. The relevant material placed by the petitioner in support of his defence was not duly considered, and the Enquiry Officer also exceeded the scope of the charge while recording the findings. 13. Accordingly, while the punishment is not liable to be completely set aside, the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is held to be disproportionate to the charge and the material available on record. The same is therefore modified to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. 14. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 03.09.2026 SAK Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable P a g e | 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 25703 OF 2023 Date: 03.09.2026 SAK