N Boby Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

N BOBY, S/O.LATE EDWIN WATSON, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NOW PRESENTLY WORKING AS MULTI-PURPOSE HEALTH EXTENSION OFFICER PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER, KANITHI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MEDICAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. AP 522237

¶14

THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, VISAKHAPATNAM. AP 530009

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent herein in not furnishing fhe documents in Annexure No.Ill of Charge Memo dt.27.12.2025 vide Rc.No.1224/A2/2025, as illegal, arbitrary, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to furnish the documents in Annexure No.Ill of . the Charge Memo for submitting his Written Statement of Defence to the said Charge Memo, and pass

¶17

2

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.B CHANDRA SHEKHAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶22

3

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER:-

¶24

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶25

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent herein in not furnishing fhe documents in Annexure No.Ill of Charge Memo dt.27.12.2025 vide Rc.No.1224/A2/2025, as illegal, arbitrary, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to furnish the documents in Annexure No.Ill of the Charge Memo for submitting his Written Statement of Defence to the said Charge Memo…”

¶26

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

¶27

The contention of the petitioner is that though the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings and issued charge memo on 27.12.2025, the respondents failed to furnish relevant documents which are necessary for submitting defence statement and the petitioner has also made a representation dated 05.01.2026 to that effect. Despite receipt of the said representation, the respondent authorities have not inclined to furnish the documents. Hence, the writ petition.

¶28

Considering the said submissions, this court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case and the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities, more particularly, 2^nd respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 05.01.2026 and furnish the documents which are

¶29

4

¶30

necessary for submission of defence statement within a period of two weeks

¶31

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32