Disposed

C Jeevan Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026WP/24300/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, C Jeevan Kumar challenged his suspension as Deputy Tahsildar, alleged to be based merely on an audio clip circulated on social media. The hon'ble Court held that the question of unpalatable language in the clip is a factual issue for the Respondent Authorities to examine in light of the petitioner's explanation. The petition was disposed of by directing the authorities to consider the explanation and decide on the continuance of suspension within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent Authorities to consider the petitioner's explanation and pass appropriate orders on the continuance of suspension within four weeks.

C Jeevan Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010445982026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3460]

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 24300/2026

Between:

C Jeevan Kumar

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶21

W.P.No.24300 of 2026

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the orders of suspension, dated 21.08.2026 of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶24

The petitioner is working as Deputy Tahsildar in the office of the Tahsildar, Thottambedu, Tirupati District. While so, a audio clip in connection with an extent of Ac.0.09 cents with regard to illegal gratification of Rs.3,00,000/- and other allegations, was being circulated, containing the voice of the petitioner along with others. On the basis of said audio clip, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶25

The counsel for the petitioner submits that a hearing of the audio clip does not disclose any unpalatable language used by the petitioner vis-à-vis the senior officials of the Government and that the impugned order of suspension was passed as a linear reaction without considering this aspect.

¶26

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that there are serious allegations against the words raised by the petitioner and that the audio clip circulated on social media necessitates keeping the petitioner under suspension. It is further submits that a detailed Charge Memorandum was also issued to the petitioner.

¶27

Heard the learned counsels.

¶28

The issue of whether unpalatable language was used by the petitioner in the audio clip, which is the basis for passing the impugned order, is a factual issue which can be examined by the Respondent Authorities by taking into account the explanation of the petitioner.

¶29

¶30

In view of the above submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following direction:-

¶31

(i) The Respondents authorities are directed to consider the explanation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with regard to the continuance of suspension of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicated the same to the Petitioner.

¶32

(ii) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

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

¶34

closed.

¶35

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

Date: 10.09.2026

mmk/eha

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶40

W.P.No.24300 of 2026

¶41

Dt: 10.09.2026

¶42

mmk/eha

C Jeevan Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Jeevan Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases