Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/3239/2026 of Marra Satya Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 3239 OF Between: 1. MARRA SATYA PRASAD,, S/O MARRA YDHAN, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT MANAGER (DCCB), R/O D.NO.2 NAGAR OPPOSITE ROAD NO.3, CHIDIGA,
APHC010040032026
IN TH
FRIDAY
TWO
THE HON
WRI
Between:
1. MARRA SATYA PR
OCC ASSISTANT
NAGAR OPPOSIT
INDRAPALEM, KAK
1. THE STATE OF A
SECRETARY, C
BUILDINGS, AMAR
2. THE
COMMISSIO
SOCIETIES, GOVE
SYAMALA NAGAR,
3. THE DISTRICT CO
A.P-533001.
4. THE DISTRICT C
KAKINADA DISTRIC
5. THE DISTRICT C
CHAIRMAN
/
JUNCTION, KAKINA
6. THE CHIEF EXE
CENTRAL BANK.
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Y,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
IT PETITION NO: 3239 OF 2026
RASAD,, S/O MARRA YDHAN, AGE
MANAGER (DCCB), R/O D.NO.2-
E ROAD NO.3, CHIDIGA, KAKIN
KINADA DISTRICT-533006.
AND
ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT
COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, S
RAVTHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238
ONER
AND
REGISTRAR
OF
C
ERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522006.
OLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT
COOPERATIVE OFFICER, NEAR
CT, KAKINADA-533003.
COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK,
PERSON-IN-CHARGE,
NAGA
ADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT-533003.
ECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT C
NAGAMALLITHOTA JUNCTION
DESH
[3208]
H
ED 39 YEARS,
-284, ADARSH
NADA RURAL,
...PETITIONER
TS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARIAT
8.
COOPERATIVE
, 11TH LINE,
, KAKINADA,
RTO OFFICE,
REP BY ITS
ATNALLITHOTA
.
COOPERATIVE
N, KAKINADA,
KAKINADA DISTRICT-533003.
...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 impugned action of the 6th respondent in issuing impugned proceedings Ref No. Estt/Gangavaram Branch/2024-25, dt 4/03/2025, imposing major penalty of reduction in rank from the category of Manager to Assistant Manager, further imposing punishment of fixing the pay of the petitioner in first stage of basic pay in the pay scale of the post of Assistant Manager, which punishment is not at all contemplated under Service Regulations as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, apart form violative of principles of natural Justice, consequently set aside the same with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. in interest of justice and 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 to grant interim suspension of impugned proceedings Ref No. Estt/Oangavaram Branch/2024-25, Dt. 04/03/2025, on the file of 6th respondent, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.G V SHIVAJI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES II
2.SRINIVAS BASAVA
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 3239 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.
ORDER:-
The instant Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned proceedings in Ref.No. Estt/ Gangavaram Branch/ 2024-25, dated 04.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No.6, imposing major penalty of reduction of rank from the category of Manager to Assistant Manager, further imposing punishment of fixing the pay of the Petitioner in first stage of basic pay in the pay scale of the post of Assistant Manage is illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Mr. G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Srinivas Basava, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents No. 5 and 6.
3. While assailing the punishment order passed by the Respondent No.6, the ground is the question of jurisdiction of disciplinary authority. Such issue was already decided by the coordinate bench of this Court, vide order, dated 28.02.2025 in W.P.No. 4903 of 2025 in identical matter and passed the following order, which reads as follows:- “In the case at hand, the CEO placed the petitioner under suspension vide Ex.P3 and also issued Ex.P13 charge memo.
Thus, the appellate authority suspended the petitioner pending inquiry and also initiated disciplinary proceedings pending charge memo.
Whether the appellate authority is competent to place an employee under suspension, contrary to Clause 10.11 of Staff Service Regulations, requires consideration.
Learned standing counsel seeks time to file counter-affidavit.
Given the facts and circumstances, the suspension order, vide Ref.No. Estt/ Yeleswaram Branch/ 2024-25, dated 11.11.2024 (Ex.P.3) is hereby suspended. Since the jurisdiction of the CEO regarding issuance of Ex.P.13 charge memo is in dispute and in pursuance of suspension of Ex.P3, the 3rd respondent is directed not to proceed with any disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner.”
4. Considering the submissions made and following the observations made in W.P.No. 4903 of 2025, the instant Writ Petition is allowed, while setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 04.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No.6 and remanding the matter to the competent authority to proceed further as per rules in vogue. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 06.02.2026 KK