Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/22010/2026 of SRI K PRABHU DAS Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 9 August 2026
for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010400042026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE 10th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 22010/2026 Between: 1. SRI
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading :
APHC010400042026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 10th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 22010/2026
Between:
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. SRI K PRABHU DAS, S/O JERMIAH AGE 45 YEARS OCC GRADE -IV PANCHAYATI SECRETARY R/O H. NO 14-105, SUDDABAVI STREET, UDAYAGIRI,
SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 524226 .
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.-522237
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.- 524001
3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 524003
4. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYATI OFFICER, KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 524003
5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.- 524201
6. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, VARIKUNTAPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH- 524227
7. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, VARIKUNTAPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 524227
8. THE ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICER, DPO OFFICE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH- 524003
9. THE ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICER, DLPO OFFICE, KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH- 524201.
...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 a Writ, order or orders more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in passing the order dated 14-05-2019 vide ROC NO 4229/2017-A1 under APCS (CC and A) rules 1991 Rule-9 (IV) on enquiry report submitted by the 4th Respondent subsequently set aside the order dated 14- 05-2019 vide ROC NO 4229/2017-A1 passed by the 2nd Respondent against the Petitioner herein against the principles of natural justice, and Articles 14, 16, 21 AND 300-A of the Constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. GADDAM VINAY MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following:
Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.22010 of 2026 O R DE R: The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 14.05.2019, issued vide ROC.No.4229/2017-A1 under APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 as arbitrary and illegal.
2. The Petitioner was appointed as Grade-IV Panchayat Secretary on 20.06.2014 and was posted at Varikuntapadu Mandal and discharging his duties to the best of his abilities. While so, on 21.12.2017, Respondent No.7 lodged a complaint to Respondent No.5 through Respondent No.6 on fabricated allegations and the same was forwarded to Respondent No.2. On 23.01.2018, Respondent No.2 issued charge memo under Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules. An enquiry was conducted and penalty of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect was imposed on 14.05.2019. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner pointed out various procedural irregularities and contended that the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that the impugned order of punishment is based on an enquiry report and the nature of punishment has no financial impact on the Petitioner at this length of time and the writ petition is hit by laches.
5. Heard Sri G.Vinay Mohan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I.
6. The penalty imposed on the Petitioner is stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. The impugned order was passed on 14.05.2019 and there is no explanation offered by the Petitioner for filing the present writ petition after lapse of seven (7) years. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, no syllable is mentioned regarding the delay. Further, it is not the case of the Petitioner that the penalty imposed had delayed or impacted further promotions or has any impact on the pay of the Petitioner. In that scenario, the adjudication of this case is merely academic and there is no divesture of any subsisting legal rights of Petitioner.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 10.08.2026 KLP