Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/15058/2025 of M.Veeranna Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 8 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 15058/2025 Between: 1. M.VEERANNA RAJU,, S/O. DANIAL, AGE 45 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY RANGE
APHC010271382025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 15058/2025
Between:
1. M.VEERANNA RAJU,, S/O. DANIAL, AGE 45 YEARS, WORKING
AS DEPUTY RANGE OFFICER, NUZIVEEDU (SF), O/O. FOREST
RANGE OFFICER, O/O. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (SF)
NUZIVEEDU, ELURU DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS, SCIENCE
AND
TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT,
A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, (HEAD
OF FOREST FORCE) MANGALAGIRI, A.P.
3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, RAJAMUNDRY CIRCLE, RAJAMUNDRY,
...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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the orders passed by the 1st respondent government in Memo No.220/SEC/iv/A1/2024-2 dt.25.3.2025 rejecting the appeal filed against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, PCCF in
Proceedings in No.14464/2014/A and DC-3(ii) dt.27.12.2023 imposing penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16 21 and 311(2) of Constitution of India R/w. Rule 20 of A.P.C.A. and C.C.A. Rules and consequentially declare that the Petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer on par with his juniors with all consequential attendant benefits and to pass appropriate order or orders as this Hon’ble High Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders passed by the 1st respondent government in Memo No.220/SEC/iv/A1/2024-2 dt.25.3.2025 rejecting the appeal filed against the orders passed by the 2"*^ respondent PCCF in Proceedings in No. 14464/2014/A&DC-3(ii) dt.27.12.2023 imposing penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to issue an Interim order, directing the Respondents forthwith to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer in the existing vacancy pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave for filing of the Counter Affidavit in W.P.No.15058 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P V RAMANA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
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:
The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
<to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the orders passed by the 1st respondent government in Memo No.220/SEC/iv/A1/2024-2 dt.25.3.2025 rejecting the appeal filed against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, PCCF in Proceedings in No.14464/2014/A and DC-3(ii) dt.27.12.2023 imposing penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16 21 and 311(2) of Constitution of India R/w. Rule 20 of A.P.C.A. and C.C.A. Rules and consequentially declare that the Petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer on par with his juniors with all consequential attendant benefits and to pass….=
2. Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially punishment was imposed by respondent no.2 vide order dated 27.12.2023 withholding one increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Government. But surprisingly the appellate authority only extracted the grounds raised by the petitioner and remarks of PCCF and rejected the appeal without giving any reasons for rejection of the appeal. Further learned counsel also pointed out that when the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of respondent no.2, respondent no.1 ought not to call for remarks from respondent no.2 and based on the remarks, the appeal cannot be rejected. To support his contentions, he relied on two judgments of this Court reported in AIR 1978 Andhra Pradesh 444. The identical case was considered by the Division Bench and held whether the quasi judicial appellate authority is competent to call for a para-wise remarks/report from the District Collector against whose order an appeal was pending and ultimately held that it is nothing but mis-interference with the exercise of quasi-judicial appellate order. Further learned counsel also submitted that in catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically said that while deciding statutory appeals, the authorities have to decide the same based on the records and with an independent mind that to by giving an independent findings/reasons. But in the instant case, on perusal of the impugned order, the Government has rejected the appeal stating that on perusal of the remarks and reasons submitted by PCCF and HOFF, who is also not supported by contentions of the appellants and opinion that the charged officer is guilty. That means the appellate authority has solely decided the appeal on remarks of the disciplinary authority and also based on his opinion that clearly establishes that the appellate authority has not made his mind while deciding the appeal independently.
4. Considering the submissions and also on perusal of the records and observations made by the Division Bench order, the impugned order dated 25.3.2025 is set aside by remanding the matter to respondent no.1
to decide the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner independently based on the records and it is needless to say that, if required, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH 09.4.2026 RD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.15058 OF 2025 09.4.2026 RD