P. Kanakasundara Rao Vs State of A.P. Secretary, Education Dept, & 2 Others — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

P. Kanakasundara Rao Vs State of A.P. Secretary, Education Dept, & 2 Others — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; the writ petition was disposed of without costs, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge any further proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned enquiry proposal if they have adverse consequences.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings dated 03.11.2003 requesting the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner alone (leaving the 3rd respondent despite grave allegations against him), under the Rules framed under Sections 79, 80 and 83 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 read with G.O.Ms.No.467 dated 03.11.1983, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, warranting quashing of the proceedings.

Court's answer

Since the impugned proceedings only propose to conduct an enquiry, if any further proceedings are initiated pursuant thereto, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge those proceedings if they have adverse consequences.

Ratio / Principle

On this basis, the writ petition stands disposed of, with no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI (Challa Gunaranjan, J.) — Writ Petition No. 24706 of 2003, decided 21.11.2025: The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to declare illegal and set aside proceedings in Rc No 4241/B1/2002 dated 03.11.2003, by which the 2nd respondent requested the 3rd respondent to appoint an Enquiry Officer and hold an enquiry against the petitioner alone, allegedly contrary to the Rules framed under Sections 79, 80 and 83 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (G.O.Ms.No.467 dated 03.11.1983) and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Counsel stated that no further notice or action followed the impugned proceedings, and respondents' counsel could not confirm any further steps; though the petitioner was said to have been subsequently terminated, no termination order was placed on record. Holding that the impugned proceedings merely proposed an enquiry, the Court left the petitioner free to challenge any consequential proceedings having adverse effects, and disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed.

APHC010154222003

Bench Sr.No:-55 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3506] AT AMARAVATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 24706 of 2003

P. Kanakasundara Rao

...Petitioner

Vs.

State of A P, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department & two others.

...Respondent(s)

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr.V PADMANABHA RAO Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): , GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, P RAJASEKHAR

CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

DATE : 21th November 2025

ORDER:

Present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing proceedings dated 03.11.2003 requesting the 3rd respondent in conducting enquiry against the petitioner alone leaving the 3rd respondent though grave allegations are against the 3rd respondent in accordance with the Rules framed under Sections 79, 80 and 83 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, communicated in G.O.Ms.No.467, dated 03.11.1983, duly appointing the Enquiry Officer, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the Sections 79 80 and 83 of A P Education Act, 1982, and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Proceedings in Rc No 4241/B1/2002 dt 03 11 2003 issued by the 2nd respondent and to pass such other order…”

2. There was no interim order granted at the time of issuance of

notice to the respondents.

2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after issuance

of the impugned proceedings, petitioner has not been further communicated with any notice or action proposed, much less as mentioned in the impugned proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents also are not in a position to state as to whether any further steps have been initiated against the petitioner, despite on last occasion informing that the petitioner has been subsequently terminated, no such termination order has been placed on record.

5. Since the impugned proceedings only proposes to conduct an enquiry, in case any further proceedings have been initiated in pursuance to the same, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge such proceedings if at all the same has adverse consequences.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if

any in this case, shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

Date:21.11.2025. cs