P Mallikarjuna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010286622025

¶2

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

¶3

[3208]

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 14513/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

P MALLIKARJUNA, S/O GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY ASST. COMMISSIONER, GUDUR CIRCLE, R/O H.NO.3-1-39, 1ST LANE, NAGENDRA NAGAR, SETTYGUNTA ROAD, NELLORE DISTRICT - 524 002.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (CT), SECRETARIET BUILDING, NELAPADU, AMARAVATI.

¶12

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH, KUNCHANAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE SECRETARY TO VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER, ANDHRA PRADESH, VIGILANCE COMMISSION, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

¶14

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, NELLORE DIVISION, NELLORE.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 1^st Respondent in passing the impugned order vide G.O.Rt.No.569, dated 21.08.2024, wherein a common order has been passed against 23 delinquent officers including the petitioner, imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

¶18

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

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is assailed on both legal as well as factual grounds. The learned counsel mainly contends that there are no specific findings recorded in the enquiry report with regard to the charge leveled against the petitioner. Except referring to certain evidence and generally holding that the charges are proved , no specific findings or detailed reasons have been assigned in the enquiry report. It is further contended that the disciplinary authority has also not recorded any independent findings or reasons while imposing the punishment, and the punishment has been imposed without proper consideration of the material available on record.

¶20

As far as the factual aspects are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had specifically contended before

¶21

the Enquiry Officer that as per the Government Memo, the working hours of the Administrative Office are from 10.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. It is further contended that at the time of the surprise inspection, the petitioner was admittedly not present at the said point of time, and therefore the allegation made against the petitioner is not sustainable. However, these aspects were not considered either by the Enquiry Officer or by the disciplinary authority while arriving at their conclusions.

¶22

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds raised, which involve both legal as well as factual aspects, this Court is not inclined to go into and decide the matter on merits, as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal. In the said circumstances, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal under Rule 33 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order . If such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall receive and consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two (02) months thereafter, if required, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ

¶24

petition shall stand closed.

JUSTICE D RAMESH

08.04.2026 klk

186

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH