WP/19527/2026 of B K CHAKRAVARTHI Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 19 July 2026

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 17.06.2026 passed in D.No.627/2026 in C.No.35/A5/OE- PR/2024, dated 17.06.2026, by the Respondent No.3 imposing the penalty of "PPI for three years with effect on future increments and pension" and treating the suspension period as "Not on duty" without assigning any reasons, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The Petitioner is working as an Armed Reserve Police Constable. While so, the Petitioner was suspended on 18.06.2024, taking note of the Special Report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Pedakakani P.S., Guntur District, dated 07.03.2024, on the allegation that he took money twice, amounting to Rs. 1,000/-, from the prostitutes by name Yesupogu Estheru Rani, Shaik Haseena, and Kasimalla Ratna Kumari, to allow them to leave the vacant plot located behind the Little Sisters of the Poor Old Age Home within the limits of Namburu (V) and Pedakakani (M). It is further alleged that he scolded and beat Shaik Haseena and Kasimalla Ratna Kumari indiscriminately with a palm stick, causing contusions on their persons, thereby involving himself in illegal activities such as abuse, assault, and bribery. On the same allegations, a Charge Memorandum was issued on 07.11.2024.

3. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report on 25.02.2025, holding that the charges leveled against the Petitioner were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, taking note of the Enquiry Report dated 25.02.2025, issued a Dissent Note on 16.06.2025, explaining the reasons for the dissent. Thereupon, the Petitioner submitted his explanation thereto on 08.07.2025. However, the Respondent No.3 passed the impugned order, holding that the explanation of the Petitioner was not found convincing and imposed the penalty as mentioned above.

4. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned order does not contain any reasons for imposing the penalty on the Petitioner.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Dissent Note issued by the Respondent No.3 contained the reasons and as the explanation of the Petitioner was not found satisfactory, the impugned order is deemed to have been passed in terms of the Dissent Note.

6. Heard the learned counsels.

7. The Enquiry Report dated 25.02.2025 holds that the charges levelled against the Petitioner were not proved. The

Dissent Note clearly mentioned the reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. After receipt of the explanation submitted by the Petitioner to the Dissent Note, a reasoned order ought to have been passed by the Respondents while imposing the penalty. Therefore, in the absence of reasons, the impugned order of penalty cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions:

i) The impugned proceedings in D.No.627/2026 in C.No.35/A5/OE-PR/2024, dated 17.06.2026, are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Respondent No.3 for passing fresh orders from the stage of the explanation of the Petitioner dated 08.07.2025 to the Dissent Note dated 16.06.2025.

ii) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed as withdrawn. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 20.07.2026 eha

WRIT PETITION NO: 19527/2026 Dt. 20.07.2026

eha