Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/9878/2024 of P.Karunakara Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 9878/2024 Between: 1. P.KARUNAKARA RAJU,, S/O PADMARAJU SUBBARAMA RAJU, AGE 47 YEARS, OCC-
APHC010192962024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 9878/2024
Between:
1. P.KARUNAKARA RAJU,, S/O PADMARAJU SUBBARAMA
RAJU, AGE 47 YEARS, OCC- HEAD CONSTABLE-478
14TH BATTALION, APSP, ANANTHAPURAMU
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.
2. THE ADDL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, APSP
BATTALIONS, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICEIII, ANDHRA PRADESH SPECIAL POLICE BATTALIONS, KURNOOL.
4. THE
COMMANDANT,
14TH
BATTALION,
ANDHRA
PRADESH SPECIAL POLICE ANANTHAPURAMU.
...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 issue a writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring in action of the respondents 2 to 4 in issue of the impugned proceeding of Charges against the petitioner in Rc.No.05/PR/2021, dated 12.06.2021 and also including Enquiry report Rc.No.70(18)/Camp/2021-23, dated 14.01.2023 as illegal arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice apart from the violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and may be Suspend the impugned proceeding of Charges against the petitioner in Rc.No.05/PR/2021, dated 12.06.2021 and also including Enquiry report Rc.No.70(18)/Camp/2021-23, dated 14.01.2023 and declare them as illegal arbitrary and set-a-side the same and pass
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all the proceedings issued by the 2nd to 4th respondents against to the petitioner in the Charge Rc.No.05/PR/2021, dated: 12.06.2021
and also including Enquiry report Rc.No.70(18)/Camp/2021-23, dated 14.01.2023 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the status-quo granted on 07.05.2024 in W.P.No. 9878 of 2024 dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of merits and pass petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased may be pleased to extend the Interim Orders dated 07-05-2024 passed in I.A NO 1 of 2024 in W.P.No 9878 of 2024 until further orders and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CH S V SURAJ
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 writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in issuing the impugned charge memo in Rc.No.5/PR/2021, dated 12.06.2021, and the consequential Enquiry Report in Rc.No.70(18)/Camp/2021-23, dated 14.01.2023, is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services–I appearing for the respondents.
3. On perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is contended that the respondents conducted the enquiry and submitted a report contrary to the statements of other employees. It is further contended that the Enquiry Officer relied upon certain statements made by officers, wherein they stated that they made such statements under pressure before their superiors. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the charge memo dated 12.06.2021 as well as the enquiry report dated 14.01.2023.
4. Considering the submissions, this Court passed an interim order dated 07.05.2024 to maintain Status Quo.
5. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Government Memo dated 28.10.1999 issued by the General Administration (SPL.B) Department, wherein the State Government considered the orders issued by the Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, as referred to in the second cited Circular, and decided to adopt the instructions of the Central Vigilance Commission with respect of anonymous and pseudonymous complaints received against cadre and non-cadre officers of the State Government. Accordingly, it was ordered that no action whatsoever shall all be taken on any anonymous or pseudonymous petitions or complaints received against such officers, and that the same shall only be filed.
6. However, on perusal of the charge memo dated 12.06.2021, it is evident that the charges were not framed based on any third-party complaint. In fact, five charges were framed based on the alleged misappropriation attributed to the petitioner, supported by Annexure–II and Annexure–III, which contain statements of various officers and a preliminary report. Both Annexure–II and Annexure–III contain more than thirty (30) documents. In such circumstances, the Government Memo relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case.
7. After notice, the respondents filed their counter. According to the counter, the enquiry was completed and, due to the interim orders granted by this Court, the respondents could not pass final orders.
8. The petitioner has not placed any material to substantiate the grounds on which the charges are sought to be quashed. On the other hand, the respondents relied upon relevant documents, and articles of charge were framed with regard to the alleged misappropriation of certain amounts. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure, and the petitioner has not been able to point out any procedural violation.
9. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage accordingly the writ petition is disposed of by vacating the interim order dated 07.05.2024, directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 05.02.2026 LSP