APHC010053032026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3575]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

WRIT APPEAL NO: 108/2026 Date of Decision:16.03.2026 Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank, and Others ..APPELLANT(S)

AND T Lakshmana Rao ...RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON’BLE MS JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Present:- Ms.V.Uma Devi, Advocate for appellants.

Ms.SodumAnvesha, Advocate for respondent LISA GILL,J

1. Challenge in this writ appeal is to order dated 10.7.2025 passed by learned Single Bench, whereby writ petition filed by respondent writ petitioner has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case, necessary for adjudication of appeal, are that respondent/writ petitioner filed CWP.No.9114 of 2021, challenging order dated 23.10.2020, whereby major penalty of reduction of scale of pay by placing the writ petitioner in fifth stage of pay in Officer scale-I cadre, was imposed on him,. It was pleaded by writ petitioner, who was working as Branch Manager with the appellant Bank i.e. 5^th Respondent in the writ petition, that he was suspended in an irregular manner from service on 07.04.2006, suspension was revoked on 02.08.2006 and a charge memo dated 5.6.2007 was served upon him on 14.6.2007. Reply to charge sheet was filed by petitioner on 23.08.2007 but dissatisfied with the explanation, departmental enquiry was ordered. Ultimately, penalty of reducing the employment to a lower time scale was imposed on 04.08.2008.

4. Appeal filed by writ petitioner, challenging this order was dismissed on 27.12.2008, which was further challenged by him by way of W.P.No.7086 of 2009. Said writ petition was allowed by this High Court on 31.8.2020, remitting the matter to the appellate authority/3^rd respondent in the writ petition, to reconsider the same in the light of explanation submitted by petitioner.

5. Aggrieved of speaking order dated 23.10.2020 passed in compliance to above said order dated 31.8.2020, the writ petitioner filed CWPNo.9114 of 2021. Learned Single Bench, after considering the facts and circumstances, found that explanation offered by petitioner, which the 3^rd respondent was directed to consider was in fact not properly considered and that impugned order dated 23.10.2020 was passed in a predetermined manner, disregarding the directions of this High Court issued on 31.8.2020. Accordingly, writ petition was allowed and impugned order dated 23.10.2020 was set aside. Aggrieved therefrom present appeal has been filed by A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank.

6. Learned counsel for appellants vehemently argues that there is proper consideration of the explanation offered by petitioner which is reflected on a bare reading of order 20.10.2020wherebypunishment imposed has in fact been reduced. There is modification in the punishment imposed i.e. reduction of scale of pay by placing in fifth stage of pay in O.S-1, which is admittedly a lower punishment. This fact by itself displays that there is proper application of mind by the authority.

7. Learned counsel for respondent has refuted the arguments, while submitting that impugned order has been correctly passed.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file with their assistance.

9. It is a matter of record that writ petitioner was proceeded against by the department/bank and punishment was imposed upon petitioner vide order dated 04.08.2008. Thereafter, W.P.No. 7086 of 2008 filed by petitioner was allowed on 31.08.2020, directing present appellant to reconsider the same in the light of the explanation submitted by petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Subsequently, speaking order dated 23.10.2020 was passed; relevant and operative portion thereof reads as follows:-

“In view of the directions of the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No.7086 of 2009 filed Sri T.Lakshmana Rao, the case has been examined afresh in the light of explanation submitted by the petitioner and perused the charge sheet. Enquiry Report, orders passed by the Discip