V Srinivasa Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Feb 2026WP/3173/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay in concluding departmental enquiry; writ of mandamus under Article 226; charge memo No.7489/CPR & RD/B1/2016 dated 05.07.2017; Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer appointed 02.01.2018; direction to conclude enquiry within six months in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022; G.O.Ms.No.679 GAD dated 01-11-2008; Articles 14, 16 and 21; Section 151 CPC application; Panchayat Secretary Grade II; East Godavari/Kakinada; Justice D. Ramesh; W.P. No. 3173 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to conclude the departmental enquiry initiated pursuant to charge memo No.7489/CPR & RD/B1/2016 dated 05.07.2017 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 within six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶¶45

V Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010051182026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3208]

¶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: 3173/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri V. SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. V. LACHANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GR.II, O/o. CHITRADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHITRADA VILLAGE, PITHAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, R/O. 6-298, PANCHAYATI ROAD, P. GANNAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT533240.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT522237.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NO. 12-47, P.V.S. ICON, NEAR PRATUR CROSS ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522501.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA, KAKINADA

¶16

¶17

DR,J W.P.NO.3173 OF 2026

¶18

DISTRICT-533001.

¶19

THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, AMALAPURAM, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT-533201.

¶20

THE EXTENSION OFFICER (PR & RD) AND PRESENTING OFFICER, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT-533001.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

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 by declaring the action of the 4th Respondent herein in not concluding the departmental enquiry, basing on the Charge Memo issued vide Charge Memo No.7489/CPR and RD/B1/2016 dated.05.07.2017 by the 2nd Respondent in spite of the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.91, dated.12-9-2022 and G.O.Ms.No.679, GAD, Dated.01-11-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and in contravention of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Service Rules and also contrary to the Service Rules and consequently direct the Respondents to finalize the departmental enquiry as expedite and to pass …

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶24

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 Respondents to finalize the departmental enquiry as expedite forth with pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.Mr. Shaik Meeravali

¶27

¶28

DR,J W.P.NO.3173 OF 2026

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶30

1.AGP for Services-I

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

¶33

DR,J W.P.NO.3173 OF 2026

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following

¶36

relief:

¶37

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 4th Respondent herein in not concluding the departmental enquiry, basing on the Charge Memo issued vide Charge Memo No.7489/CPR and RD/B1/2016 dated.05.07.2017 by the 2nd Respondent in spite of the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.91, dated.12-9-2022 and G.O.Ms.No.679, GAD, Dated.01-11-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and in contravention of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Service Rules and also contrary to the Service Rules and consequently direct the Respondents to finalize the departmental enquiry as expedite…”

¶38

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

¶39

A charge memo No.7489/CPR & RD/B1/2016, dated 05.07.2017, was issued to the petitioner framing a single charge. The petitioner submitted his written statements of defense on 30.09.2017 and 16.11.2017.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2^nd respondent, vide proceedings No.7489/CPR&RD/B1/ 2016, dated 02.01.2018, appointed the 4^th respondent as the Enquiry Officer and the 5^th respondent as the Presenting Officer to enquire into the charge memo, dated 05.07.2017. It is submitted that the enquiry is still pending. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the departmental enquiry.

¶41

¶42

DR,J W.P.NO.3173 OF 2026

¶43

Having heard the respective submissions, this Court is of

¶44

the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner, seeking expeditious conclusion of the departmental enquiry, can be addressed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022.

¶45

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the departmental enquiry initiated pursuant to the charge memo No.7489/CPR & RD/B1/2016, dated 05.07.2017, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

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

¶47

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶48

Date: 05.02.2026 LSP

V Srinivasa Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Srinivasa Rao 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

S.Vedavathi Devi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Venkataramana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunjeti Nagendra Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

D L Venkateswara Reddy Vs the State of Ap

K Mohan Rao Vs the State of Ap

B v v Ramana Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh