The High Court · 2025

PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO:22241 oF 2025 Between: Sanaboina Srinivasa Rao_ Ii:fl#;ll'Jfi fi,5.1i;,'(% i: Hj,"J'R "TSli-:f,:sfSifl,i.-X!3i'epjh,,,l,:T5i ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 4 I3:*',:x'& 31,[ile:g1e'o*:',i;::ii?X rbv Sll?l'il?3 3:" r:iTi,n#g. rri,, " *i* :.YiB3[l3iB?Jll, rlllg..B8; J3,ir" Ll*?['d ; f8fll5: I ;'.,[:{:1i 5::,8'.Yl'i""Tl.. t#s,'xffi its principa r secreta ry, E ne rsy, fi i3J; J,,13! : fr!,S Jfl5 so uth e rn powe r c vb e rcitv, re ra ns a n a s ta te p u r D i vi s i o n re r a ns a n a state ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction, more particurarry one in the nature writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order declaring the action of Respondents in continuing the petitioner under suspension beyond the prescribed period of two years with effect from 26.0g.2022 pursuant to Memo No.DEE/Op/Kondapur/JAO_ ADM/D. No.309 t2Z dt.zg.OB.2022, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of the principres of naturar justice and contrary to G.o. Ms. No.86, GAD dt.g.03.1g94, besides being viorative of Articre 14 of the constitution of rndia, consequenfly direct the lstrespondent to reinstate me in service in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Coud may be pleased to direct the 1"t respondent to consider representations dt' 23 08'2024 and 28 07 '2025 for reinstatement into service, in the interest of justice as otherwise petitioner stands to suffer serious hardship and irreparable loss and injury' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N' MANOHAR Counsel forthe Respondent No'1: GP FOR SERVICES - lt Counsel forthe Respondent Nos'2 to 4: SRI N' SREEDHAR REDDY' S.C. FOR TSSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER 'ryry E ,B ES T I M v HW w ORDER 2 1 F2 l I I I I The present writ petition is fired seeking to decrare the action of the respondents in continuing the petitioner under suspension beyond the prescribed period of two years with effect from 26.08.2022, pursuant to Memo No.DEE/OplKondapur/JAO_ ADM/D.No.3O9/22, dated 29.08.2022, ", itt"gut and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri N. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government pleader for Services_II, appearing respondent No.1, and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, counser ror TSSPDCL, appearing for respondent Nos.2 Perused the material on record. learned Standing to4

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 26.08.2022, a case in FIR No.12/RCT_CR_2/2022 was registered against the petitioner by the Inspector of police, ACB, City Range_2, Hyderabad, for the ofrence under section 7(a) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on a complaint lodged by one Mr. Mylarapu Shiva Kumar Reddy, pursuant to which the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Consequenfly, respondent No.4 issued the suspension order vide Memo No.DEE/OPlKondapur,AO-ADM/D.No.3 Og/22, dared 29.OB.2OZ2, 2 under suspenslon with elfect from .f placing the Petitioner

26.08.2022. although a charge sheet Learned counsel fudher submits that 4. no dePartmental enquirY has been filed in the said criminal case' has been initiated against the petitioner till date' He submits that the petitioner continues to be under suspension for nearly three years without review, which is in violation of G'O'Ms'No'86' General Administration (Ser'C), dated 08'03'1994' which mandates that suspension orders be reviewed every six months and should not ordinarily extend beyond two years except in exceptional cases' It is also submitted that the petitioner submitted representations dated 23.08.2024 and 28'07'2025 requesting reinstatement and that his reinstatement was recommended in a review meeting held on 09.09.20 24, but no action has been taken' Hence' learned counsel prays this Court to direct the respondents to review the suspension order dated 29'OB'2022 and reinstate the petitioner into servlce

5.LearnedCounselforthepetitionerlastlySubmitsthatthe present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court' dated 29.o2.2024 in W.P.No.5069 of 2024, and prays this Court to pass a similar order in the present writ petition also. 6 The said submission is not seriously disputed by the learned J counsel for respondents.

7. The relevant portion of the order dated 29.02.2024 W.P.No.5069 of 2024, is extracted hereunder: "5. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, this Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.5 to review the suspension order of the petitioner, dated 09.03.2023 as per G.O.Ms.No.86 General Administration (Ser.C), dated 08.03.1994 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possibte, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner..,, I t

8. Having regard to the submissions made by the rearned counsel appearing for the respective parties, and for the reasons alike in the order dated 29.02.2024 in W.p.No.5069 of 2024, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.l to review the suspension order of the petitioner, dated 29.08.2022 as per G.O.Ms.No.B6, General Administration (Ser.C), dated 08.03.1994, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner' There shall be no 4 order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' .1 .-::, ,' a, ,l 'I SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASslsrANT REGISTRAR !9TE:--.That the direction issued to mentioned at .iqg No.8 of the order dated 3o.0r.rbr5 in WP.No.22241 ot 2025 is wrongly issJJ io "Respondent No.2', instead of ,,Reiponalni flo.i; g.nd the same is corrected as per the Orders of the -oi H-on'ble Court dated 09.09.2025 in l.C-.ll".i 2025. This amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been Oisfatched on 06.08.2025. //TRUE COPYII SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER uilding, Saifabad, erabad, State of Telangana. Chai rman and Managing Director, Telangana State Southern power The Princi pal Secretary, Energy, Secretariat B Hvd The Distribution Com pany Limited Mint Compound, Hyderabad The Superintendent Engineer /Operations, Telangana State Cybercity, Southern Power Distrib ution Company Limited, The Divisional Engineer, Operationi Kondapur Division Tela ngana State Southern Power Distribution Com pany L imited, One CC to SRI N MANOHAR, Advocate [OPUC Two CCs to GP for Services- ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad One CC to Two CD Copies SREEDHAR REDDY, S.C. for TSSpDCL [OPUC] .[ourl SRI N. To, 1 2 3 4 b 7 8 MP TKS t I HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 ' ..,,-.. -\-, .:..\ $' .,.i.\ \ . (:.: '.4' , li' .-::" \\" \i,' 't\. AMENDED ORDER WP.No.22241 o12025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ x \