Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/22834/2026 of K MAHA LAKSHMI DEVI Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 12 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 22834/2026 Between: 1. K MAHA LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O. MARUTHI GIRI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 3/1287,
APHC010419282026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 22834/2026
Between:
1. K MAHA LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O. MARUTHI GIRI PRASAD, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 3/1287, SINE PURAM, SAIBABA
SARANALAYAM
ROAD,
KADAPA
CITY,
YSR
KADAPA
DISTRICT, WORKING AS CONDUCTOR GRADE-LL WITH E. NO.
410765 IN APSRTC KADAPA DEPOT (PRESENTLY UNDER
SUSPENSION) - 516001.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, ROADS AND BUILDINGS (PDT.I)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522238.
2. THE
MANAGING
DIRECTOR
VICE
CHAIRMAN,
PUBLIC
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT/ APSRTC, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT. - 522002.
3. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, KADAPA DEPOT, YSR
KADAPA DISTRICT. -516001.
...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 toIssue an Oder or a writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 in not
reinstating the Petitioner into her service as Conductor Grade-Ill pursuant to his Suspension Order dated bearing No. P1/114(03)/2026-Kdp dated 30.04.2026 and pending departmental Enquiry pursuant to his Charge Sheet bearing No. P1/114(03)/2026-kdp dated 30.04.2026 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently to direct the Respondent No.3 to reinstate the Petitioner into her service as Conductor Grade-ll 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 To direct the 3rd Respondent herein to reinstate the Petitioner into her service as Conductor Grade-ll pending disposal of main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KALEEMULLA S
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
WRIT PETITION No.22834 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.3 in not reinstating the Petitioner into her service as ‘Conductor (Grade-II)’ pursuant to her suspension order issued vide No.P1/114(03)/2026-Kdp, dated 30.04.2026, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The Petitioner is working as Conductor (Grade-II) (E.No.410765) in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) at Kadapa depot. While so, a complaint was said to have been given by one S. Kamalamba (E.No.410767) alleging certain irregularities in Conductor (Grade-I) promotions. On enquiry, it was stated that the said S. Kamalamba had denied her signature in the complaint, alleging that the same was forged by the Petitioner. Consequently, on the said ground, the impugned order came to be passed. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petition came to be filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for services.
4. The purpose of suspension is to keep an individual does not interfere with the preliminary enquiry to be conducted. However, in the present case, the only allegation leveled against the Petitioner is that, she forged the signature of one S. Kamalamba and gave the complaint. In the opinion of this Court, the said allegation does not warrant to keep the Petitioner under suspension. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions:-
(i) The Respondent-Authorities are directed to reconsider the order of suspension and the requirement to keep the Petitioner under suspension, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. No order as to costs.
6. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Date: 13.08.2026 chs
WRIT PETITION No.22834 of 2026 Dated: 13.08.2026
chs