Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/21068/2026 of Smt. Bolli Geetha Rani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 17 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY, THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21068/2026 Between: 1. SMT. BOLLI GEETHA RANI, W/O THOKALA MURALI, AGED 58 YEARS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE
APHC010391892026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 21068/2026
Between:
1. SMT. BOLLI GEETHA RANI, W/O THOKALA MURALI, AGED 58
YEARS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT, KAKINADA,R/O
19-3-2/3/G,
SRINIVASPURAM,
RENIGUNTA
ROAD TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH-517501.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE AND
COOPERATION
(H
AND
S)
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI,GUNTUR DISTRICT-
522238.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE AND SERICULTURE H
AND S, BESIDE MINI RYTHU BAZAR, GUNTUR - 522 004.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA
(E.G)-533001.
...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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Rt.No.641 and G.O.Rt.No.642, dated 13.07.2026, despite the petitioners representation
dated 15.07.2026 specifically pointing out reasonable apprehension of bias and likelihood of prejudice, as illegal. arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, fairness, institutional impartiality and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the said Government Orders and direct the respondents to appoint independent officers having no previous involvement whatsoever with the petitioner or the subject matter of the dispute to conduct any disciplinary proceedings, and pass 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 stay the operation and all further proceedings pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.641 and G.O.Rt.No.642, dated 13.07.2026, issued by the 1st respondent including all consequential disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition, Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
WRIT PETITION No.21068 of 2026
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.
ORDER:
1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.1 in issuing G.O.Rt.No.641 and G.O.Rt.No.642, dated 13.07.2026, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Inspector of Sericulture in the year 1991 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Assistant Director in the year 2018 and Deputy Director in the year 2024. While so, two departmental enquiries were initiated against the Petitioner, and charge memorandums were issued to her under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, vide G.O.Rt.No.286, Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG.I) Department, dated 23.04.2026, and G.O.Rt.No.276, Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG.I) Department, dated 17.04.2026.
3. In the charge memorandum issued against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.286, Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG.I) Department, dated 23.04.2026, four articles of charge were framed against her. Article of charge - I states that the Petitioner had exhibited gross negligence and dereliction of duty by failing to ensure the mandatory annual verification and stamping of electronic weighing machines at the
Government Cocoon Market, Chebrolu. Article of charge - II states that the Petitioner had neglected her supervisory responsibilities over the weighing process, and allowed a variation of 1.340 kg for every 50 kg of cocoons. The other charges framed against her align with the above charges.
4. In the other charge memorandum issued against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.276, Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG.I) Department, dated 17.04.2026, two articles of charge were framed against her with regard to the misappropriation of Government funds. Pursuant thereto, one Smt. C. Aruna Kumari, Additional Director of Sericulture, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer vide G.O.Rt.No.641, Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG.I) Department, dated 13.07.2026, for conducting the enquiry, and one Smt. G. Parameswari, Joint Director of Sericulture, Anakapalle, was appointed as the Presenting Officer vide G.O.Rt.No.642, Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG.I) Department, dated 13.07.2026, with respect to the charge memorandum issued against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.286, Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG.I) Department, dated 23.04.2026.
5. In the present case, the grievance of the Petitioner is that the Presenting Officer and Enquiry Officer are biased against the Petitioner. It is stated that one of the documents, which is the genesis for issuance of the second charge memorandum vide G.O.Rt.No.276, Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG.I) Department, dated 17.04.2026, is the document submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 21.03.2025, which is also a relied-upon document in the said enquiry. Aggrieved by the appointment of the said officers as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, the Petitioner submitted a representation, dated 15.07.2026, requesting the Respondent-Authorities to change the said officers. As the same is not being considered, the Writ Petition came to be filed.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – I submitted that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Presenting Officer are made parties to the present Writ Petition and, in the absence of the said persons, the issue of bias cannot be gone into by this Court, as the allegations are personal in nature. Apart from that, it is further stated that the present Writ Petition is only a step to delay the enquiry initiated against the Petitioner.
7. Heard Sri K. S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – I.
8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions, is of the opinion that the issue of bias against the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer is a factual issue and the scope of this Court to examine such aspect, more so in the absence of the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer as party-Respondents to the present Writ Petition, is extremely limited. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the Petitioner to raise the above objections before the Disciplinary Authority within a period of two weeks from today and, on receipt of the same, the Disciplinary Authority shall examine the above issue and shall give necessary instructions in that regard.
9. No order as to costs.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Date: 18.09.2026 chs
WRIT PETITION No.21068 of 2026 Dated: 18.09.2026
chs