Garujula Dharanidhar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

TADE RAJA BABU, S/O RAJULU, AGED 57 YEARS, WORKED AS HEAD MASTER IN-ASHRAM HIGH SCHOOL BOYS, RAMPACHODAVARAM, R/O 3-33, VEEDHI ROAD, CHINARELLANGIPADU, RAJAVOMANGI, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT.

¶10

KUNJAM VENKANNA DORA, S/O ABBAI DORA, AGED 40 YEARS. WORKED AS HWO (FAC) IN ASHI'AM HIGH SCHOOL BOYS, RAMPACHODAVARAM, R/O 4-2, GINNAPALLI, RAMPACHODAVARM, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, TULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MOGHALARAJPURAM, REVENUE COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTORNODAL OFFICER, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, PADEM.

¶17

2

¶18

THE PROJECT OFFICER, ITDA, RAMPACHODAVARAM, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT

¶19

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE, RAMPACHODAVARAM, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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 orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/ITDA/13 5/2025, dated 01-09-2025 of the 5th respondent for Suspension of Petitioners from the Service of Head Master and HWO(FAC) in Ashram High School(Boys), Rampachodavaram of Alluri Sitharama Raju District, for Petitioners concerned, as its being illegal, arbitrai-y, without jurisdiction, without having power, contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 01-04-2011 and the G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 28-062011, as the competent Authority issuance of Suspension Orders, for Petitioner concerned the 3rd respondent and for the 2nd Petitioner concerned, the 6th respondent and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 309 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set-aside the Suspension Order vide Rc.No.Al/ITDA/135/2025, dated 01-09-2025 of the 5^th respondent and pass such other order.

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 Suspend, the Suspension Orders of Proceedings Rc.No.A1/ITDA/135/2025, dated 01-09- 2025 of the 5th respondent for Petitioners concerned pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such other order.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶25

1.G SIMHADRI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶28

3

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 30487/2025

¶30

Between:

¶31

GARUJULA DHARANIDHAR, S/O LAKSHMANA RAO, AGE 45 YEARS, MALE, TEACHER SGT -REGULAR (UNDER SUSPENSION), GTW ASHRAM HIGH SCHOOL (BOYS) R/O D. NO. 1-104, YARRAM REDDY NAGAR RAMPACHODAVARAM533288, ALLURI SITHARAMARAJU DISTRICT -AP

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPT., VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶35

THE DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA.

¶36

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALLURI SITHARAMARAJU DISTRICT, PADERU.

¶37

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR TRIBAL WELFARE, RAMPACHODAVARAM. ALLURI SITHARAMARAJU DISTRICT.

¶38

THE PROJECT OFFICER ITDA, RAMPACHODAVARAM, ALLURI SITHARAMARAJU DISTRICT.

¶39

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶40

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 particularly, one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to quash the impugned suspension Order vide Rc.No.A1/ITDA/135/2025 Dt. 01-09-2025 passed by the 5th Respondent/ Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram against this petitioner where his name was showed at serial No-2, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension without there being any fault on his part in violation of G.O.Ms.No.15 19.04.2025 of AP School Education (Services-I) Dept. Which clarified that the Deputy Director (TW) of ITDA concerned alone is the competent authority in respect of teachers working

¶41

4

¶42

in agency ITDA Schools as such the impugned suspension Order Rc.No.A1/ITDA/135/2025 Dt. 01-09-2025 was issued without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, ultra vires, without authority of law, unreasonable, unjust, without application of mind and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and may please to set-aside the same consequently reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass such other order.

¶43

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶44

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 stay the operation of the impugned suspension Order Rc.No.A1/ITDA/135/2025 Dt.01-09-2025 passed by the 5th respondent Project Officer, ITDA Rampachodavaram against this petitioner where his name was showed at serial No-2 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as SGT pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass such other order.

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶46

1.KOTHA NAGA SURYA RAO

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶48

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶49

The Court made the following:

¶50

5

¶51

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶52

WRIT PETITION Nos.29112 and 30487 of 2025

¶53

COMMON ORDER:

¶54

W.P.No.29112 of 2025 is filed to declare the Proceedings issued by Respondent No.5 vide Rc.No/A1/ITDA/135/2025, dated 01.09.2025 suspending the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 from service as Head Master and HWO (FAC) respectively in Ashram High School (Boys), Rampachodavaram of Alluri Sitharama Raju District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶55

W.P.No.30487 of 2025 is filed to quash the impugned suspension order issued vide Rc.No.A1/ITDA/135/2025, dated 01.09.2025 by Respondent No.5 i.e. Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram, suspending the Petitioner from service as Secondary Grade Teacher (Regular) in GTW Ashram High School (Boys), Rampachodavaram of Alluri Sitharama Raju District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶56

As the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is similar, a Common Order is being passed.

¶57

The brief facts are as follows;

¶58

6

¶59

In both the Writ Petitions, the order of suspension dated 01.09.2025 issued by Respondent No.5 suspending the Petitioners from service, is under challenge. The Petitioners are working as Head Master, HWO (FAC) and Secondary Grade Teacher (Regular) respectively in Ashram High School (Boys), Rampachodavaram of Alluri Sitharama Raju District. While so, it was brought to the notice of the Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram i.e. Respondent No.5 that one un-known body aged about 12-13 years was found dead at Main Canal in Sirigindalapadu Village of Rampachodavaram Mandal.

¶60

On verification, it was came to the notice of the authorities that the deceased boy was studying IX Class at Ashram High School (Boys), Ramapachodavaram and after enquiry they came to a conclusion that the Petitioners had shown dereliction towards their duties resulting in tragic death and such conduct on the part of the Petitioners indicates serious misconduct and failure to discharge official responsibilities properly, which amounts to violation of the A.P.C.S (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In order to ensure fair and impartial enquiry, the Petitioners were kept under suspension vide impugned orders.

¶61

7

¶62

The learned counsels for the Petitioners submit that the impugned order was passed by the Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram and the same is not in consonance with the above said Rules and their contention is that the District Collector is the appointing authority as per the Andhra Pradesh Tribal Welfare Educational Service Rules, the impugned order was passed by the Projector Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram, and the said authority is not being the appointing authority, is not entitled to pass the impugned order. Alternatively, it is submitted by the counsel for the Petitioners that continuance of the Petitioners under suspension since September, 2025 is not warranted as the impugned order of suspension being stigmatic or punishment by itself.

¶63

The learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri S. Raju would submit that the gravity of the charge framed against the Petitioners warrants continuance of suspension to ensure fair and impartial enquiry.

¶64

Heard the respective counsel.

¶65

The relevant portion of Rule 14 of A.P.C.S (Conduct) Rules, 1991 reads as under;

¶66

8

¶67

“Rule 14(1)(a)(i): The authority which may place a member of a Subordinate Service under suspension under Rule 8 or impose on such member the penalties specified in clause (i) of Rule 10 and clauses (i) and (iv) of Rule 9 shall be his immediate superior gazetted officer or where the appointing authority for such member is a non-gazetted officer, such officer, or any authority to which he is subordinate.”

¶68

The above said Rule provides for imposition of orders of suspension by any authority, who is superior to the delinquent.

¶69

In the present case, the Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram, being a superior officer than the Petitioners, it cannot be said that the impugned order of suspension is without jurisdiction.

¶70

However, the contention of the counsels for the Petitioners is that continuance of the suspension of the Petitioners from 01.09.2025 onwards is not warranted in the cases of this nature for which the Petitioners are individually not responsible merits consideration.

¶71

Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petitions are disposed with the following directions;

¶72

9

¶73

(i) The Respondent-authorities are directed to examine the requirement of continuance of the Petitioners under suspension within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶74

(ii) No order as to costs.

¶75