SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 6862

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D RAMESH
S SUBHASHINI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 4364/2026



APHC010076322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3208]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 4364/2026 Between:

1. S SUBHASHINI, W/O.V.VIDYASAGAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, R/O.D.NO.5-151/1, VENKATADRI NAGAR, SUJATHA NAGAR POST, CHINNAMUCHIDIVADA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238

2. T HE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IBRAHIMPATNAM, NTR DISTRICT.

521456

3. T HE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI. 531001 ...RESPONDENT(S):

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 appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo no. 5122/E4/2002 dated 7.1.2026 issued by the Respondent no. 2 rejecting the request to regularize and treat suspension period ass on duty from 20.10.2021 to 9.2.2023 and to pay backwages, increments and all the other consequential benefits as per Rule 54b of THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES AND SUBSIDARY RULES having awarded minor punishments of censure by proceedings no. 15394/E-VG/2023 dated 10.1.2024 as arbitrary, illegal colorable exercise of power apart from being violated of fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Article 14, 1921 of the Constitution of India and consequently a) Set aside the memo no. 5122/E4/2002 date 7.1.2026 issued by the Respondent no.2. b) Further direct the Respondents to regularize the suspension period between 20.10.2021 to 9.2.2023 and provide all the consequential benefits such as backwages, increments and promotions, etc., and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 respondent to reconsider the representation dated 19.2.24 and 19.12.2024 in view of the order of this Hon’ble Court in the cases of A.V.Vinod Kumar vs. Executive Committee, reported in 2007(5)ALD 445 by suspending the operation of the Memo no. 5122/E4/2002 dated

7.1.2026, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.5122/E4/2002, dated 07.01.2026 issued by the Respondent No.2 on rejecting the representation of the petitioner for regularization for the suspension period between 20.10.2021 to 09.02.2023 having awarded minor punishment of Censure vide Proceedings No 15394/E-VG/2023, dated 10.01.2024, as contrary to Rule 54-B of Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power apart from being violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the (a) to set aside the Memo No.5122/E4/2002, dated 07.01.2026 issued by Respondent No.2 and (b) direct the respondent No.2 to regularize the period of suspension between 20.10.2021 to 09.02.2023 and pay full back wages along with increments with consequential pay revisions and pass such other orders.”

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

3. The case of the petitioner is that, while he was working as a Superintendent in the office of the District Mines and Geology Officer, Visakhapatnam, certain alle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top