Dismissed

Dokka Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Jul 2024WP/10173/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the suspension of a Panchayat Secretary under the 1991 Service Rules, the Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that finding merits requires inquiry as the petitioner's allegation was disputed and premature to decide the Model Code of Conduct violation at this stage, while acknowledging the suspension order prima facie fell under Rule 8(1) of the 1991 Rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; directed to review suspension and complete inquiry.

Dokka Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10173 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dokka Krishna, S/o. Dokka Adinarayana, Aged about 49 years, Occ Panchayat Grade-IV, Rachepalle Gram Panchayat, Singannamala Mandal, Anantapuramu District. R/o. Narappala Village, Singannamala Mandal Ananthapuram District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj AND Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj AND Rural Development Department Tadepalle, Guntur District.

¶13

The District Collector, (Panchayat Raj) Anantapuramu, Anantapuram District.

¶14

The District Panchayat Officer, Anantapuramu, Anantapuram District.

¶15

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Singannamala Mandal, Anantapuramu District

¶16

¶17

The Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission, Rep. By its Election ^ Commissioner, 1ST Floor, New HODs Buildings, M.G. Road, 0pp. Indira _ .^Gandhi Municipal Stadium, Vijayawada-Pin-520 010.

¶18

N,. 7 *

¶19

¶20

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 action of the 3rd Respondent issued the impugned suspension proceedings vide. Roc. No.4858042024/A2(Pts), dated 24.03.2024 placing the petitioner under suspension and continuing in spite of petitioner's several personal approaches and explanation as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in contravention of Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Service Rules and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service and continue the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary Rachepalli Gram Panchayat Singannamala Mandal, Anantapuramu District forthwith

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2094

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i m support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased leased to direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service and continue service as Panchayat Secretary, Rachepalli Gram Panchayat, Singannamala Mandal, . Anantapuramu District forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. ROSEDAR S.R.A

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

APHC010199182024

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3331] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 10173/2024

¶33

Between:

¶34

Dokka Krishna ...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

1.ROSEDARS.R.A

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶41

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

Impugning the proceedings vide Roc.No.485804-2024/A2(Pts)

¶45

dated 24.03.2024, whereby the petitioner was suspended as per Rule

¶46

8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,^Controland

¶47

Appeal) Rules, 1991, the above writ petition is filed.

¶48

Page 2 of 4

¶49

Heard Sri Rozedar S.R.A, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Y.B.Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV for respondents 1 to 4.

¶50

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that suspension of the petitioner by 3'-* respondent basing on report, is without application Of mind to the facts of the case. He would also submit that petitioner was suspended on the allegation that he participated in political rally on 14.03.2024, however the model code of conduct came into force from 16.03.2024.

¶51

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV would submit that the petitioner participated in election rally, which act ISi violative of Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short “Rules 1964”). He would also submit that petitioner was suspended pending enquiry and the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Rule 37 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short Rules 1991”) to file appeal.

Page 3 of 4

Now, the point for consideration is:

¶57

Whether the proceedings impugned are liable to be set aside?

¶58

There is no quarrel that petitioner while discharging^dutiesas Panchayat Secretary of Rachepalle Gram Panchayat, Singannamala Mandal, Anantapuramu District, was suspended by the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. The respondent-District^Collector in exercise of powers under Rule 8 (1) of the Rules 1991 placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry, since the petitioner violated the Rules 1964. The contention of petitioner^thatmodecode of conduct came into force from 16.03.2024, however, he was allegedly participated in political rally on 14.03.2024,^{thisCourtisnot} persuaded with the said contention at this juncture. It being a disputed question fact, the same will be resolved after enquiry. Since, the suspension order was passed basing on the report; any finding recorded by this Court at this juncture will prejudge^{theissue.Prima} facie, the authority exercised powers vested with it^{underRule8ofthe} Rules 1991. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶59

Page 4 of 4

¶60

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Since the petitioner was suspended on 24.03.2024, the respondent shall review the suspension in terms of G.O.Ms.No.22 General Administration (SER-C) Department dated 29.02.2024 and also complete the inquiry as expeditiously as possible in terms the Rules in vogue.^Noorderasto costs.

¶61

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shallstand closed.

¶62

To,

¶63

Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶64

One CC to SRI. ROSEDAR S.R.A Advocate [OPUC]

¶65

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES IV ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶66

Three CD Copies

¶67

¶68

\ (

¶69

HIGH COURT> t \ k \ « \

DATED:20/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.10173 of 2024

■t.

DISMISSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Dokka Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dokka Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Doppalapudi Mohan Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pakalapati Giri Prasad Varma, Vs The Engineer-in-Chief

Merugu Sundara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Balu Sadhana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Konduru Rama Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Budumuru Eswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh