Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/29982/2026 of J MANJULA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 12 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE 13th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 29982/2026 Between: J Manjula ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel
APHC010548612026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 13th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 29982/2026
Between:
J Manjula
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. CH SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.29982 of 2026 O R DE R: The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent Authorities in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.K8/129/2024, dated 15.07.2026 keeping the Petitioner temporarily out of employment as Field Assistant arbitrary and illegal.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows: The Petitioner was working as Field Assistant since 2019. While so, the Respondent No.3 issued the impugned Proceedings dated 15.07.2026keeping the Petitioner temporarily out of employment as Field Assistant and also issued show cause notice dated 06.05.2026 to submit an explanation. After receipt of notice, the Petitioner had submitted his explanation on 11.05.2026 denying the allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent No.3 issued Orders suspending the service of the Petitioner vide Proceedings dated 15.07.2026 while calling for the explanation of the Petitioner. Thereupon, the Petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.07.2026. It is stated that after submitting the explanation by the Petitioner, no Charge Memo has been issued and no departmental enquiry has been initiated. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that as the enquiry proceedings were not concluded within the time specified in Clause 13 (B)(5) of the Field Assistants Human Resource Policy i.e. 30 days, the Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service. The Counsel also relied on an order passed in similar circumstances by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16643 of 2025.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the enquiry will be initiated and enquiry would be concluded in compliance of the procedure prescribed. The further contention is that the guidelines are not statutory and even otherwise, no consequence is stated for non-compliance of the time frame of 30 days and therefore, the same cannot be said to be mandatory.
5. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court, without going into the issues urged by the Respondent counsel, is inclined to dispose of the writ petition in terms of W.P.No.16643 of 2025 with a direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate the Petitioner into service. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 13.10.2026 eha
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.No.29982 of 2026 Dt. 13.10.2026
eha