confession of one accused, the petitioner was implicated as A11 and another Police Constable as A12, and the case was taken on file as C.C. No.84 of 2011 and later renumbered as C.C. No.825 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. A departmental enquiry was also conducted under Rule 20 of the AP Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, and the Enquiry Officer, by report dated 03.04.2023, held that the charges were not proved, observing that the witness statements were unreliable, lacked corroboration, and suffered from procedural lapses, which was also consistent with the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No.29432 of 2022 before this Court challenging the initiation of departmental enquiry despite his acquittal, and by common order dated 18.11.2025 in W.P. Nos.29432 and 29434 of 2022 this Court set aside the impugned proceedings, holding that reopening disciplinary proceedings based on preliminary enquiry after submission of the Enquiry Officer’s report exonerating the delinquent employee is legally unsustainable. Pursuant to the said order and the Enquiry Officer’s report, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.11.2025 seeking implementation of the Court’s directions, including revocation of suspension, reinstatement with consequential benefits, regularization of suspension period as “on duty”, grant of notional promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector with effect from 15.09.2021, fixation of seniority and pay, and payment of all attendant benefits. However, the respondents have neither considered
