1. This writ petition challenges the imposition of penalty withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect for alleged slack supervision of subordinate officers. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D Ramesh, J
Gangala Suresh Babu – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 8760/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri
For the Respondents: GP for Services I
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri
For the Respondents: GP for Services I
The disciplinary authority must provide tentative reasons for disagreeing with the enquiry officer's findings under Rule 21(2) of the AP Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, to ensure fair play and natural justice; failure to do so renders the penalty order illegal.
Headnote:(A) Disciplinary Proceedings - Disagreement with Enquiry Report - Requirement of Tentative Reasons - Failure of the disciplinary authority to provide specific tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer is a violation of Rule 21(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and contravenes the principles of fair play and natural justice. (Para 3)
Issues: Whether the impugned order imposing penalty is sustainable when the disciplinary authority disagreed with the enquiry report without providing tentative reasons as mandated by Rule 21(2) of the AP Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends the impugned order violates Rule 21(2) of Andhra Pradesh Services Rules, 1991, requiring disciplinary authority to give tentative reasons for disagreement with enquiry findings. (Para 3 )
3. Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remanded to disciplinary authority to pass orders with separate reasons for disagreement under Rule 21(2). (Para 3 )
4. What does Rule 21(2) of Andhra Pradesh Services Rules require of a disciplinary authority that disagrees with an enquiry officer's findings?
The disciplinary authority must give tentative reasons for disagreement based on the findings and evidence on record. This is both a statutory requirement and an aspect of fair play. (Para 3 )
5. Is stating that the defense of charged officers is not convincing sufficient as tentative reasons for disagreement under Rule 21(2)?
No. A general statement that defenses are not convincing does not substitute the requirement to provide specific tentative reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report. (Para 3 )
6. What is the remedy when penalty proceedings are found to be contrary to Rule 21(2)?
The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to consider the enquiry report and pass appropriate orders with separate reasons for disagreement. (Para 3 )
APHC010171842026
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
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 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
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 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
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
1. 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
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. 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 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.
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.
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 gi
