Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/16512/2026 of K.Veera Babu Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 23 June 2026
pronouncement : 24-06-2026 Date of uploading : APHC010309032026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO:
Date of pronouncement
: 24-06-2026
Date of uploading
:
APHC010309032026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 16512/2026
Between:
K.veera Babu
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V V N NARAYANA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.No.16512 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.
O R D E R:
The present writ petition is filed declaring the proceedings No.63/2024/DVC/PRP/B4/16, dated 13.11.2024
of the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows: The Petitioner is working as Technical Consultant in MGNREGS Programme. The Respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings on the ground that certain allegations were found against the Field Assistants and the Petitioner and thereby kept the Petitioner temporarily out of employment as Technical Consultant and sought for explanation.
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 Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, submits that the enquiry would be initiated soon and the same would be concluded within three weeks. 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. The maintainability of the writ petition was also urged as the nature of job of the Petitioner is akin to Labour.
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 4th respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service and conclude the enquiry after providing due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 24.06.2026
Whether the order is: Speaking
Reasoned
Reportable
Non-reportable
eha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.No.16512 of 2026 Dated: 24.06.2026
eha