O R D E R:

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

“…to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction by declaring the inaction of the Respondent No. 2 for taking necessary action against Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 despite of the request made by the Secretary of Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh through its proceedings vide R.O.C. No. 38 of 2018 dated 4-1-2018 and consequently direct Respondent No. 2 to initiate appropriate action against Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for the atrocities committed against the Petitioner herein and to pass such other order or orders…”

2. I have heard Ms. Pujari Srinitha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a practicing advocate in Jogulamba Gadwal District. It is alleged that the respondent police officials, actuated by personal animosity, subjected the petitioner to continuous harassment and falsely implicated him in multiple criminal cases while he was discharging his professional duties as an advocate, particularly in matters relating to civil disputes involving alleged land grabbing. According to the petitioner, upon exposing certain illegal acts of the local police and initiating legal proceedings against them, the said officials began targeting him by misusing their official authority.

3.2. The petitioner further asserts that he submitted representations to higher authorities and also approached the Bar Council. Pursuant thereto, the Bar Council, vide ROC No. 38 of 2018 dated 04.01.2018, requested respondent No. 2/the Director General of Police to inquire into the matter and take appropriate action against the concerned officials. However, despite such intervention, the alleged harassment is stated to have continued in the form of registration of frivolous criminal cases. It is, therefore, contended that the inaction on the part of respondent No. 2 is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3.3. The petitioner further contends that the inquiry purportedly conducted pursuant to his representations is legally unsustainable, as it does not conform to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, “CCA Rules”). It is argued that no proper disciplinary proceedings were initiated in accordance with law. In the absence of any efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3.4. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on an order of this court in Dr. Duraisamy Baskaran v. M/s. GAIL (India) Limited (W.P. No. 26030 of 2017) to contend that writ jurisdiction is maintainable where statutory procedures governing disciplinary action are not followed. Further reliance is placed on Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 297, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a writ of mandamus would lie to compel authorities discharging public duties to act in accordance with law. The petitioner also relies upon Kulamani Biswal v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1888, and Union of India v. P. Thyagarajan, (1999) 1 SCC 733, to contend that any inquiry conducted in violation of prescribed procedure is vitiated in law and liable to be set aside. Further reliance is placed on Jagmohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 3 ILRA 191, wherein it was held that disciplinary findings cannot be sustained in the absence of a proper evidentiary process, including examination of witnesses.

4.1. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the allegations are baseless and motivated by mala fides. It is contended that the alleged harassment and misuse of auth