The court upheld the legality of government orders regarding the appointment of an in-charge officer and suspension, finding no arbitrariness or illegality based on inquiry reports.

ORDER :

(SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.)

Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions are interrelated, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.26984 of 2024 is filed impugning G.O.Rt.No.729, Agriculture & Cooperation (AGRI.I) Department, dated 14.11.2024 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to the Government i.e. respondent No.1, posting one Smt. D.M.F. Vijaya Kumari, DDA/DPM, NTR District (APCNF) as in-charge District Agriculture Officer (DAO), NTR District, with immediate effect and further directing the Director of Agriculture of Andhra Pradesh, to post the petitioner in a non-focal post, immediately due to the allegations levelled against her, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. W.P.No.29759 of 2024 is filed impugning G.O.Rt.No.766, Agriculture and Operation (Vig.I) Department, dated 11.12.2024 issued by respondent No.1 i.e. Special Chief Secretary to the Government of A.P., suspending the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 (for short 'the Rules'), as illegal and arbitrary.

4. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Agricultural Officer (AO), on 02.07.1992. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to Assistant Director on 06.01.2006 and further promoted to Deputy Director of Agriculture, on 14.06.2017. After the formation of the new District, the petitioner was posted to NTR District. The Deputy Director of Agriculture is the highest cadre post in the District. After assuming the charge as Deputy Director of Agriculture, the petitioner, in the discharge of her duties, conducted various rides, and division-wise awareness camps, was appointed as Inquiry Officer against Mandal Agricultural Officer, Veerlapadu Mandal, and acted per the rules. Some of the erring officers in the department influenced the Dealers‟ Association and provoked them to give false and fabricated complaints against the petitioner. Acting upon the said complaints, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was also discriminated against and not allowed to take part in the promotion process, though she is part of the said Committee. Appointing another person, as in charge and respondent No.1 directing the Director of Agriculture, AP, Guntur to post the petitioner to any non-focal post is stigmatic and hence, G.O.Rt.No.729 is liable to be set aside.

5. Suspension of the petitioner, pending the inquiry is without application of mind. Hence, G.O.Rt.No.766 dated 11.12.2024, impugned in W.P.No.29759 of 2024 is also liable to be set aside.

6. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.2 on his behalf as well as on behalf of respondent No.1, in W.P.No.26984 of 2024.

7. It is very unfortunate, that when the proceedings issued by respondent No.1 are under challenge, respondent No.1 is expected to file a counter affidavit, but not respondent No.2. However, since respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit even on behalf of respondent No.1, this Court, at this juncture is not going into that aspect.

8. In the counter affidavit, it was contended inter alia, that the Krishna District Fertilizers, Pesticide and Seeds Retail Dealers Welfare Association, Vijayawada, made a complaint against the petitioner before respondent No.2. In the complaint it was alleged that the petitioner has been insisting the subordinate staff to collect money and gifts from the Fertilizers, pesticides and Seeds dealers. Since the subordinate officers are not agreeing to the said act, the petitioner has been collecting Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- from each shop, depending upon the area and the turnover. If the dealers are not meeting her demands, they are being threatened to seize stocks or suspend their licenses, etc. The petitioner is also demanding diesel for the vehicle during visits as inspection of the outlets.

b) During the inquiry conducted on the complaint of M/s. Jai Hanuman Pesticides & Seeds