APHC010076312026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3208]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 4328/2026 Between:

1. K PRABHAVATHI, W/O RANGUMUDRI JAGADEESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OEC OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, R/O.FLAT NO.208, FLORAS BEAU FORT APARTMENT, REVALLAPALEM, MADHURAWADA-530048, VISHAKAPATTANAM 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):

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 28506/E4/1991, dated 07.01.2026 issued by the Respondent No.2 on rejecting my representation for regularization for the suspension period between 21.10.2021 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 28506/E4/1991, dated 07.01.2026 issued by Respondent No.2 and (b) direct the respondent No.2 to regularize the period of my suspension between 20.10.2021 to 09.02.2023 and pay full back wages along with increments with consequential pay revisions and pass

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 Surveyor in the office of the District Mines and Geology Officer, Visakhapatnam, certain allegations were made against him. In pursuance of the said allegations, the respondent No.2 issued a memo dated 20.10.2021 and, on the instructions of the respondent No.1, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.10.2021. Thereafter, articles of charge were framed on 05.11.2021, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation, contending that he was merely a subordinate officer and not the competent authority to issue work orders or execute lease deeds. He further states that his superior officer, who was similarly placed, was initially placed under suspension but was subsequently reinstated on the ground that no loss had been caused. It is submitted that, pursuant to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer, by report dated 25.10.2023, concluded that the petitioner had not deviated from the departmental instructions and recommended dropping of the proceedings. Notwithstanding the said findings, the petitioner was continued under prolonged suspension and was reinstated only on 09.02.2023 pending enquiry. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 10.01.2024, the respondent No.2 imposed a minor penalty of censure without assigning proper reasons and without passing any orders with regard to the treatment of the suspension period, payment of back wages, or the effect on increments. It is submitted that, though he did not challenge the imposition of the minor penalty, he made representations seeking regularization of the suspension period and payment of full salary and increments, particularly in view of the finding that no loss was caused to the exchequer. In these circumstances, the petitioner contends that the continued refusal of the respondents to regularize the period of suspension is arbitrary and contrary to R