Sri Gangala Suresh Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

SRI GANGALA SURESH BABU, S/O.TIRUPAL SETTY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (STATE TAX) O/O ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KURNOOL MI CIRCLE, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (VIGILANCE-VI), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, THULLURU MANDAL, AMARAVATI - 522238, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶13

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, KUNCHANAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522501.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

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 topleased to issue an order, direction or

¶16

2

¶17

writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring G.O.RT.No.188 Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department dated 04.03.2025 imposing penalty of withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect against the concocted allegation of slack supervision on subordinate officers during surprise check of the Anti-Corruption Bureau officials on 21.12.2013 at 01.00 A.M without considering the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the enquiry report findings that charges is not proved, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and consequently set aside G.O.RT.No.188 Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department dated 04.03.2025, and pass

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶19

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 suspend the operation of G.O.RT.No.188 Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department dated 04.03.2025 imposing penalty of withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. Pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

3

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in imposing the penalty of withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect against the concocted allegation of slack supervision on subordinate officers

¶28

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

¶29

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned G.O.Rt.No.188 Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department dated 04.03.2025 is contrary to Rule 21(2) of Andhra Pradesh Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rulee,1991. In the said Rule the specific mandate is given to the disciplinary authority. If the disciplinary authority is not in concurrence with the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has to give a tentative reasons for disagreement. But on perusal of the impugned order, except stating that the Government has decided to impose the penalty withholding the two annual increments except stating that the defense of all the charged officers are not convincing. Hence, their charges are neglect of duty and the circumstantial evidences. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on

¶30

4

¶31

the identical issue decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5728 of 2025 on 05.08.2025 wherein this Court has considered the issue and held that the disagreeing with the enquiry report would not suffice, as the delinquent would be in a piquant situation as he would be uncertain as to the cause of disagreement. The requirement to provide tentative reasons for disagreement by the disciplinary authority on the basis of findings and evidence on record is not only a statutory requirement, but is also an aspect of fair play. Hence, the impugned tentative reasons given do not substitute the requirements of the Rule 21(2) of Rules, 1991.

¶32

Even in the instant case, the findings of the disciplinary authority is also identical which was not met the mandate given under the above said rule. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 04.03.2025 is contrary to Rule 21(2) of Rules, 1991 and is liable to be set aside.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned G.O.Rt.No.188 Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department dated 04.03.2025 and the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to consider the enquiry report and pass appropriate orders by giving the separate reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report in terms of Rule 21(2) of Rules, 1991. No order as to costs.

¶34

5

¶35

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

¶36

closed.

¶37

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶38

Date:16.04.2026 GK

¶39

6