Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/6699/2026 of P SAI KOTESWARA RAO Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 10 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 6699/2026 Between: 1. P SAI KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. P SREENIVASULU, AGED 32
APHC010118142026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 6699/2026
Between:
1. P SAI KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. P SREENIVASULU, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC PANCHAYAT SECRETARY - GRADEVI (CURRENTLY UNDER
SUSPENSION), R/O. D.NO.16-1-29-3, SULTAN MOHIDDIN NAGAR, KANDUKUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS
AT
VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR, PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PVS ICON BUILDINGS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE
DISTRICT
COLLECTOR
PANCHAYAT
WING,
PRAKASAM
DISTRICT, ONGOLE.
4. THE
DISTRICT
PANCHAYAT
OFFICER,
PRAKASAM
DISTRICT,
ONGOLE.
...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 topleased to issue a writ .or-order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in not initiating and concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to the suspension order in Roc.No.691/2024(Pts)A4 dated 10.10.2024
issued by the 3rd respondent, despite lapse of sixteen (16) months from the date of suspension, despite the clarification sought by the 4th respondent vide Roc.No.691/2024(Pts)A4 dated 14.08.2025 for reinstatement of petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 16 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, Consequentially direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service, pending conclusion of enquiry and to pass 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 PLeased to direct Respondent Nos.2 to 4, to consider the representations of petitioner dated 06.12.2025, 22.12.2025 & 21.01.2026 for issuing clarification orders, pursuant to Roc.No.691/2024(Pts)A4 dated 14.08.2025 issued by the 4th respondent, for reinstatement of petitioner into service, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass s Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. DODDAKA HARSHA VARDHAN
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:
1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Respondents in not initiating and concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to the suspension order in Roc.No.691/2024(Pts)A4 dated 10.10.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, despite lapse of sixteen (16) months from the date of suspension, despite the clarification sought by the 4th respondent vide Roc.No.691/2024(Pts)A4 dated 14.08.2025 for reinstatement of petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary
2. The facts leading for filing the Writ Petition are as follows:-
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected as Panchayat Secretary in Prakasam District and was appointed as Panchayat Secretary Grade–VI (Digital Assistant) at P.C. Palli Village, P.C. Mandal, Prakasam District, vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Roc.No.905/2019 (Pts) A4 dated 14.10.2019. Thereafter, he worked for a brief period at the District Panchayat Office, Ongole, Prakasam District, on deputation basis. Subsequently, vide proceedings in Roc.No.541/2023 (Pts) A6 dated 24.08.2024, he was transferred and posted as Digital Assistant at Cherukuru Village, Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam District, and he joined the said post on 01.09.2024. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent, without issuing any notice to him and without calling for any explanation, issued proceedings dated 10.10.2024 placing the petitioner under suspension until the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, alleging that the petitioner, along with a few others, committed certain irregularities during the transfers of Panchayat Secretary Grade–V and Grade–VI while he was working at the District Panchayat Office, Ongole, Prakasam District. It is further submitted that the said action of the 3rd respondent is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order dated 10.10.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petition
4. He further submits despite the lapse of sixteen months, the respondents have not initiated any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the respondents have not revoked the suspension order or reviewed the suspension order as per G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, which reads as follows:- “ix. Government direct that in all simple cases the inquiry initiated against Government Servant shall be completed within three months either by Departmental Officers or Commissioner of Inquiries. In complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the inquiry should be completed within five to six months. The Secretaries to Government shall review the progress of the inquiries ordered in all disciplinary cases and submit a note on the cases pending beyond the stipulated time to Chief Secretary to Government and also the Chief Minster.”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted basing on the general instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 29.02.2024; according to the said instructions, the order of suspension against the Government employee shall be reviewed at the end of every six months and the same has been reduced to four months and the outer limit which was earlier two years from the date has been reduced to one year, but in the instant case, six months have been lapsed. So far the respondents have not either reviewed or revoked the suspension of the petitioner.
6. Reply to the said contention, the learned Government Pleader has requested short time to pass appropriate orders as per G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 29.02.2024.
7. Considering the said submission and on perusal of the instructions issued by the Government, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents more specifically the 3rd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 29.02.2024 and pass appropriate orders on the explanations/representations dated 06.12.2025, 22.12.2025 and 22.01.2026 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _____________ D. RAMESH,J Date:11.03.2026 klk
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.6699 OF 2026
Date:11.03.2026 klk