Disposed¶39

D L Venkateswara Reddy v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Feb 2026WP/18469/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court Amaravati, W.P. No. 18469/2025, decided 05.02.2026 by Justice D Ramesh. Keywords: writ of mandamus against inaction; departmental appeal not disposed for a decade; stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect; review rejected; judgment in C.C.No.138/2006 JMFC Badvel; Commissioner Panchayat Raj and Rural Development; Zilla Praja Parishad Kadapa; direction to decide appeal within two months; Articles 14 and 21; Article 226; Section 151 CPC application; no costs; interlocutory applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to consider the petitioner's appeal in light of the observations in C.C.No.138/2006 and pass appropriate orders within two (02) months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; pending interlocutory applications stand closed. ¶39

D L Venkateswara Reddy Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3208]

¶2

APHC010358232025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 18469/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

D L VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O LATE DURLA MUNI SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC TYPIST, PRI SUBDIVISION BADVEL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.501, CHARITHASREE BUILDINGS, NAKKAL ROAD, SURYARAOPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520002

¶15

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PRAJA PARISHAD, KADAPA, YSR DISTRICT

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2^nd Respondent in considering and disposing the Appeal filed by

¶18

¶19

the Petitioner against the Order in Rc.No.E5/2998/2006 dated 28-102006 and the consequent proceedings in Rc.No.E4/2233/2014 dated 3110-2014 of the 3RD Respondent duly considering the Judgment dated 27.10.2007 in C.C.No.138/2006 on the file of the Honble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, unfair, unsustainable and Consequently direct the 3 Respondent to consider the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the Order in Rc.No.E5/2998/2006 dated 28-10-2006 and the consequent proceedings in Rc.No.E4/2233/2014 dated 31-102014 of the 3RD Respondent and pass appropriate orders by setting aside the said punishment and grant all consequential benefits and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

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 pleased to direct the 2ND Respondent to forthwith consider the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the Order in Rc.No.E5/2998/2006 dated 28-10-2006 and the consequent proceedings in Rc.No.E4/2233/2014 dated 31-10-2014 of the 3RD Respondent and pass appropriate orders after due opportunity of hearing and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.SODUM ANVESHA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶26

2.B V APARNA LAKSHMI

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the

¶31

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶32

“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the inaction of the 2^nd Respondent in considering and disposing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the Order in Rc.No.E5/2998/2006 dated 28-10-2006 and the consequent proceedings in Rc.No.E4/2233/2014 dated 31-10-2014 of the 3RD Respondent duly considering the Judgment dated 27.10.2007 in C.C.No.138/2006 on the file of the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, unfair, unsustainable and Consequently direct the 3^rd Respondent to consider the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the Order in Rc.No.E5/2998/2006 dated 28-102006 and the consequent proceedings in Rc.No.E4/2233/2014 dated 31-10-2014 of the 3^rd Respondent and pass appropriate orders by setting aside the said punishment and grant all consequential benefits and pass….”

¶33

Heard Mrs. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶34

Initially the disciplinary authority has considered and passed an order imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 28.10.2006. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were ended vide judgment dated 27.10.2007 in C.C.No.138 of 2006 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel. Basing on the observations in the above said judgment, the petitioner has filed a review application before the disciplinary authority and the same was considered and rejected vide order dated 31.10.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.2.

¶35

¶36

Considering the appeal, the respondent no.2 has issued notice and called for a report from the disciplinary authority vide proceedings dated 23.4.2015 and the disciplinary authority has also submitted report on 05.5.2015. Even after a decade, the respondent authorities have not considered the appeal, basing on the report, and disposed of the appeal. Hence the Writ Petition.

¶37

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the authorities would pass appropriate orders, if a reasonable time is granted.

¶38

Without going into the merits of the case, respondent no.2 is directed to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner, basing on the observations made by the Court in C.C.No.138/2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶39