Shaik Masthan Valli Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

SHAIK MASTHAN VALLI, S/O.LATE.SRI.S.SAWAK HUSSAIN AGED 31 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR KAMALAPURAM YSR DISTRICT KADAPA.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE (REGN-I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI 522 503

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, OPPOSITE TO POLICE GUEST HOUSE, COOPERATIVE COLONY, KADAPA 516004

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 or Order more in the nature of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 1st respondent imposing major penalty of stoppage of stoppage of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect through GO Rt No.224 Revenue (VIGILANCE-II) Department dated. 12.03.2025,as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, without reasons, not a

¶19

DR,J

¶20

W.P.No.1084 of 2026

¶21

speaking order, violation of Rule 21(3) and (5) of APCCA Rules ,and in breach of GO Ms.No.536 GA(Ser.C)Department dated 18.12.1997,which mandates consultation of APPSC for concurrence for imposition of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect and accordingly set aside the 1st respondent imposing major penalty of stoppage of stoppage of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect through GO Rt No.224 Revenue (VIGILANCE-II) Department dated. 12.03.2025 duly extending the benefit of the final order dated 17.06.2025 in WP NO.14014/2025 where under the same punishment imposed by the 1st respondent through GO Rt No. 220, Revenue (VIGILANCE-II) Department dated.12.03.2025,was set aside on the ground that is not a speaking orders and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.K R SRINIVAS

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶26

DR,J W.P.No.1084 of 2026

¶27

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶28

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶29

“…to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 1st respondent imposing major penalty of stoppage of stoppage of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect through GO.Rt.No.224 Revenue (VIGILANCE-II) Department dated. 12.03.2025,as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, without reasons, not a speaking order, violation of Rule 21(3) and (5) of APCCA Rules ,and in breach of GO Ms.No.536 GA (Ser.C)Department dated 18.12.1997,which mandates consultation of APPSC for concurrence for imposition of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect and accordingly set aside the 1st respondent imposing major penalty of stoppage of stoppage of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect through GO Rt No.224 Revenue (VIGILANCE-II) Department dated. 12.03.2025 duly extending the benefit of the final order dated 17.06.2025 in WP NO.14014/2025 where under the same punishment imposed by the 1st respondent through GO Rt No. 220, Revenue (VIGILANCE-II) Department dated.12.03.2025,was set aside on the ground that is not a speaking orders …”

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶31

Without going into the merits of the case, as contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, the punishment imposed in G.O.Rt.No.220 dated 12.03.2025 was already interdicted by this Court with regard to Senior Assistant, namely, D.Venkata Subba reddy vide orders dated 17.06.2025 in W.P.No.14014 of 2025 with the following observations:

¶32

DR,J

¶33

W.P.No.1084 of 2026

¶34

“10. As even in the present case, the impugned order does not meet the requirements of Rule 21 of Rules, 1991 and as well as does not record any specific findings or reasons upon objective consideration of petitioner’s objections, hence, the impugned order cannot sustain and accordingly, the same requires to be set aside.

¶35

11. In view of the same, the impugned G.O.Rt.No.220, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 12.03.2025, issued by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back for reconsideration in accordance with law.”

¶36

In fact, as against the petitioner, the respondents have imposed identical punishment and issued G.O.Rt.No.224 dated 12.03.2025 with the same observations.

¶37

Hence, the impugned G.O.Rt.No.224, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 12.03.2025 issued by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside in terms of the above referred order.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned G.O.Rt.No.224, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 12.03.2025 issued by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back for reconsideration in accordance with law.

¶39

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶41

Date: 19.01.2026 Dvs

¶42

DR,J W.P.No.1084 of 2026

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶44

68