Elugu Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

ELUGU PRASAD, (138903), S/O. RAJARAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC LANGUAGE PANDIT (TELUGU), MPUP SCHOOL PEDDASANA, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, R/O HARIJANA VEEDHI, NAIRA VILLAGE AND POST, AMADALAVALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH-522503.

¶13

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER D.E.O FAC, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶14

THE DEPUTY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DY.E.O, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER M.E.O, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

THE HEAD MASTER H M, M.P.U.P. SCHOOL, PEDASANA VILLAGE, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

BODDEPALLI NETAJEE RAO, S/O LATE PRATAPA RAO, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC HEAD MASTER, PEDDA VEEDHI, RADHAVALLABHAPURAM VILLAGE, POLAVARAM, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

2

¶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 issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent issuing impugned suspension proceedings vide Re. No. 323776/Ser-VIII/2025, dated 13-03-2025 by which the petitioner was placed at suspension in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8 of A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules 1991, without there being any specific allegations or conducting proper enquiry, is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violated the principle of Natural Justice and offends Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same impugned suspension order and also consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service and extend all consequential benefits and pass such other order.

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

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 direct the 2^nd Respondent to conduct proper re-enquiry against the allegations on the Petitioner and to pass such other order.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.16572 of 2025

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the suspension order vide Rc.No.323776/Ser.VIII/2025, dated 13.03.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

The Petitioner was working as Language Pandit (Telugu) in MPUP School, Peddasana, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District. While so, the impugned order of suspension was issued under Rule 8 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 on the premise that there are certain allegations against the Petitioner. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶34

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order, dated 13.03.2025 and the continuance of the order of suspension amounts to punishment. He further submits that the proposed charges against the Petitioner do not warrant to keep the Petitioner under suspension for such a long time.

¶35

4

¶36

Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that

¶37

disciplinary action is being initiated against the Petitioner and considering the charges that are proposed against the Petitioner, the order of suspension cannot be found fault with.

¶38

Heard the respective counsel.

¶39

In G.O.Ms.No.22, General Administration (Ser-C) Department, dated 29.02.2024, the Government after taking into consideration earlier G.Os, directed that orders of suspension should be reviewed every (04) months and the outer limit of suspension was reduced to one year. The Paragraph No.5 of the said G.O. is extracted below:

¶40

“After careful examination of the matter, after reviewing the said G.Os., duly obtaining the advice of the Competent Authority and in modification of the orders issued in the G.Os.1^st to 4^th read above, Government hereby direct to reduce the outer limit of suspension of Government servant from two (2) years to one (1) year from the date of suspension of the Government servant fixed in read with G.O.Ms.No.86, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept., dt.8.3.1994 read with G.O.Ms.No.526, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept., dt 19.8.2008 and G.O.Rt No.2285, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept., Dt.18.05.2012 for reinstatement of the Government servant under suspension, subject to all other conditions

¶41

5

¶42

stipulated therein and also direct to review the order of suspension against a Government servant both in ACB and Departmental Inquiries at the end of every four (4) months instead of six (6) months fixed in G.O.Ms.No.86, G A. (Ser.C) Dept., dt.8.3.1994.”

¶43

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed directing the Respondents to review the impugned suspension order vide Rc.No.323776/Ser-VIII/2025, dated 13.03.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 in terms of Paragraph No.5 of the above G.O. within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44