The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue a Writ Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the illegal action of 2nd respondent in issuing the e.Proc.No.1105546/CPR/N4/2020, dated 16-04-2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim to treat the suspension period from 02-12-2022 to 06-12-2023 on duty for all the purposes including pay and allowances, leave, service continuity, seniority, promotions and difference of salary etc., with all consequential benefits in terms of the Proceedings No.1105546/CPR/N1/2020, dated 08-05-2025 issued by the 2nd respondent dropping the charge in view of the enquiry report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer vide ROC No.A1/1842/2023, dated 13-09-2024 in spite of petitioner's representation dated 22-05-2025 and 04-11-2025 which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to law and Fundamental Rules and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the e.Proc.No.1105546/CPR/ N4/2020, dated 16-04-2026 issued by the 2nd respondent, further direct the respondents herein to treat the suspension period from 02-12-2022 to 06-12-2023 into on duty for all the purposes including pay and allowances, leave, service continuity, seniority, promotions etc., with all consequential benefits and promote the petitioner to the post of M.P.D.O., on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits….”

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

3. The case of the petitioner is that, while he was working as an Extension Officer in the office of the District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor, he applied leave for 30 days from 02.11.2022 to 01.12.2022 due to his son‟s surgery. But surprisingly, the 3rd respondent-District Collector surrendered him to the 2nd respondent office. The 2nd respondent suspended him from service vide proceedings dated 22.11.2022 on the ground of hampering of departmental administration. Though he requested one month leave, the 2nd respondent continued him under suspension for a period of 10 months without reviewing or revoking the suspension orders after completion of 3 to 6 months as per Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022. Thereafter, he submitted a detailed explanation dated 01.12.2022 to the 2nd respondent explaining the reasons for applying one month leave and he also submitted reminders to the 2nd respondent. Without considering his representations, the 2nd respondent instructed the 4th respondent to frame charges against him. Accordingly, the 4th respondent issued article of charge on 21.06.2023 and forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent, who in turn issued a charge memo dated 06.07.2023 framing the charge against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 22.07.2023 to respondent Nos.2 and 4 denying the charge levelled against him. Aggrieved by the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not revoking his suspension even after lapse of 10 months, he filed W.P.No.23497 of 2023. This Court, by order dated 08.09.2023, granted interim order and suspended the order dated 22.11.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to the said order, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 06.12.2023 reinstating the petitioner into service. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted a report stating that the charge framed against the petitioner is held not proved. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 08.05.2025, the 2nd respondent dropped the charge against the petitioner, while giving him a warning to be more careful in future. It is submitted that the petitioner made representations seeking regularization of the suspension period for all purposes, inc