D Sainath Vs the State of Ap

D SAINATH, S/O NARAYANA DAS, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC RETIRED EE (I/C), RIO. VILLA NO.48, KMV VIVAAN, 100 FT. ROAD, PORANKI, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT - 521137.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT A . SECRETAIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.- 522238

¶14

THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION (RWS S), GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT.- 521225 3.

¶15

THE INQUIRY OFFICER / INQUIRY AUTHORITY, CHIEF ENGINEER PROJECT DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH DRINKING WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, O/0 ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, 4TH FLOOR, VASUDHA SHELTER, C BLOCK, SAIPURAM COLONY ROAD, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT.- 521225 ..

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶18

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶19

India seeking the following relief:

¶20

“ to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not providing opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, .16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and _ consequently set aside the .ex-parte inquiry report vide Memo No.1332739/VIG.VI/2021,Dt.12.11.2025 issued by the 1St respondent and further direct the respondents to conduct the inquiry afresh so as to enable the petitioner to submit his case before the 3rd respondent / 1.O. and pass…”

¶21

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

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in not providing an opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case and in issuing the ex parte inquiry report vide Memo No.1332739/VIG.VI/2021, dated 12.11.2025 by the 1^st respondent is illegal and arbitrary.

¶23

On an earlier occasion, this Court, vide order dated 02.02.2026, passed an interim order directing the respondents not to take any further steps or proceedings pursuant to the enquiry report dated 12.11.2025 issued by the 1st respondent. This Court also directed the learned

¶24

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents to obtain written instructions from the concerned authorities with regard to the enquiry. Consequently, pursuant to the said order, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents placed before this Court the written instructions dated 25.02.2026, which read as follows:

¶25

“ After obtaining circulation orders from the competent authority and advice from the advisory authority, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and nine other employees vide G.O.Rt.Nos.176 & 177, PR&RD (VIG.VI) Department, dated 26.02.2024, based on allegations of corrupt practices and irregularities noticed during the surprise check conducted on 11.01.2021. The charge memo was communicated to the petitioner through the Superintending Engineer, Rural Water Supply & Sanitation, Vijayawada, along with Annexure-III containing 58 documents and Annexure-IV containing 16 witnesses in accordance with Rule 20(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991. It is further stated that the petitioner did not submit any representation to the 1st or 2nd respondents seeking supply of records and that his allegation in this regard is false. After receipt and examination of the written statements of defence from the charged officers, the Chief Engineer & Project Director, APDWSC was appointed as the Inquiring Authority and Sri I. Naga Malleswara Rao, Advocate, was appointed as the Presenting Officer, and the same was communicated to all the charged officers including the petitioner. The Inquiring Authority issued notices to the petitioner on several occasions; however, the petitioner sought postponement stating that he was going abroad and failed to produce any proof. Nevertheless, the enquiry was postponed three times. Thereafter, the Inquiring Authority conducted the proceedings in accordance with Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, 1991 and the principles of natural justice and submitted the enquiry report on 12.11.2025. As several officers were involved and in view of G.O.Rt.No.91 dated 12.09.2022, the enquiry could not be kept pending indefinitely. It is also stated that the

¶26

petitioner failed to participate in the enquiry despite sufficient opportunities. The enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner and other charged officers under Rule 21(2) of the CCA Rules and, after receipt of their explanations, a provisional decision has been taken and the matter has been referred to the highest advisory authority for its advice, which is awaited.”

¶27

On perusal of the written instructions and the record placed before this Court, it is noticed that specific assertions have been made in the writ petition that the Government initiated departmental proceedings dated 26.02.2024 and that the Enquiry Authority was appointed vide G.O.No.320 dated 05.05.2025 after a period of one year and three months. It is further stated that the Enquiry Authority issued notice to the petitioner on 09.06.2025 directing him to attend the enquiry scheduled on 18.06.2025. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 16.06.2025 to the Enquiry Authority stating that he was leaving for the United Kingdom on 17.06.2025 on personal affairs and that the programme had been prefixed and the tickets were booked in advance prior to receipt of the notice. Therefore, he expressed his inability to attend the enquiry scheduled on 18.06.2025 and requested the Enquiry Authority to postpone the enquiry for a period of four months.

¶28

A perusal of the enquiry report dated 12.11.2025 also discloses that the authorities acknowledged the letters submitted by the petitioner dated 16.06.2025 and 20.07.2025. In such circumstances, when it is admitted that the petitioner was away from the country, it cannot be stated that

¶29

despite several notices and opportunities the petitioner deliberately failed to participate in the enquiry. The petitioner is a retired employee and admittedly he was away from the country. Therefore, the respondent authorities ought not to have concluded that the petitioner did not cooperate with the enquiry proceedings. It is also noticed that the petitioner had specifically informed the authorities through his letter dated 16.06.2025 about his travel abroad. Though reference is made to the notices issued by the respondents dated 09.06.2025, 19.06.2025, 01.07.2025, 07.07.2025, 15.07.2025 and 28.07.2025, admittedly the petitioner had returned to the country only on 15.09.2025. However, on perusal of the record and the written instructions, it is evident that no notice or opportunity was provided to the petitioner after 15.09.2025 before submission of the enquiry report dated 12.11.2025. There is also no denial with regard to the request made by the petitioner dated 16.06.2025 informing the authorities about his travel abroad.

¶30

In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Enquiry Authority has not provided a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. In fact, Rule 20 and Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 clearly stipulate that the enquiry shall be conducted by providing reasonable opportunity to the delinquent officer, recording evidence properly and, if required, allowing cross-examination of the witnesses. In the present case, admittedly the enquiry proceedings were conducted while the petitioner

¶31

was outside the country and therefore the requirement of providing reasonable opportunity was not complied with.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the enquiry report dated 12.11.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent and the matter is remanded to the Enquiry Authority to conduct the enquiry afresh by providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner by issuing appropriate notice and fixing specific dates for enquiry. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the enquiry and participate in the disciplinary proceedings, and the Enquiry Authority shall complete the enquiry within a reasonable time strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Rules 20 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶34

JUSTICE D RAMESH 09.03.2026 klk

¶35

129

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO: 2806/2026

¶38

09.03.2026 klk

D Sainath v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Sainath v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thirupuranthakam Ruthvick Vs the State of Ap

T. Bhaskar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kammila Sriram Murthy Vs the State of Ap

P Venkata Subbamma Vs the State of Ap

Ganji Venkata Rao Vs the Union of India

Kuraku Venkata Ramaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh