The High Court · 2025

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 to-. a) set aside the Order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Review LA. No. 2 ot 2024 in W.P.(TR) No. 6242 ot 2017, b) restore the judgment dated 21.12.2O23 directing payment of full retirement benefits to the appellant. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI D. LINGA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI S. SATYANARAYANA RAO, The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT GP FOR SERVICES I ,o THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTTCE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1184 OF 2025 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshlt) Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-[ for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. The instant is a writ appeal which has been preferred against the order passed in Review l.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P (TR) No.6242 of 2017 by the learned Single Bench.

3. The review petition was arising out of an original order that was decided by the leamed Single Bench on 21.12.2023 in W.P (TR) No.6242 of 20t7 .

4. The whole issue revolves around the appellant, who was the applicant before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT). When O.A.No.314l of 2016 was filed, he was working as an Associate Professor of Surgery at the Govemment Medical College, Anantapur. The said appellant was subjected to 2 disciplinary proceedings. Pending the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant was superannuated from service with effect from

31.01.2010. The appellant had preferred o.A.No.3l4l of 2016 claiming for the following relief, "ln view of the facts and circumstances set out supra, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the actiqn of the respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant pursuant to the solitary charge framed against the applicant vide G.O.Rt.No.303 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.lll.1) Department dated 19.03.2005 depraving the pensionary benefits to the applicant on the said ground though the applicant retired from service on 31.01.2010 by ordering second enquiry contrary to the provisions of Rule 21 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 by duly quietly the disciplinary proceeding as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by delay and in violation of Articles, 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to sanction and pay full retirement benefits to the applicant together with an interest of 18o/o per annum pending against the applicant and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper." This would primarily give an indication that the challenge was to the continuing of the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge that was framed on 19.03.2005. When the O.A was filed in 2016 i.e., O.A.No.3l4l of 2016, by virtue of the Andhra pradesh Re-organization Act,2014, the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into the State of Andhra Pradesh as also the State of Telangana. Undoubtedly, the appellant was working in the tp a.' ,,6 3 territories, which fall in the State of Andhra pradesh. The alleged I l misconduct also was said to have been committed in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The o.A thar was filed after the bifurcation of the two States also was against the new State of Andhra pradesh and its officers. The State of Telangana was not made a party before the APAT. The only respondent referring to the State of Telangana was respondent No.3 i.e., the Accountant General, who was for both the States i.e., the State of Andhra pradesh as also the State of Telangana.

5. The fact that the appellant knew that it is the new State of Andhra Pradesh which is the relevant State as also the officials of the said State are the necessary parties, it was the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Director of Medical Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, who were made parties before the Tribunal.

6. Ignorant of this fact, so far as the last place of posting of the appellant being Anantapur, in the new State of Andhra pradesh and the misconduct alleged against the appellant also having taken place in the territories which fall in the new State of Andhra Pradesh, the writ Court, at the first instance, on 21.12.2023 allowed 4 ft}, the writ petition. However, for the aileged non-compliance of the said order, the appeilant preferred contempt petition against the officials of the State of Terangana, aileging willful non-compriance ' of the directions given by the writ court. It is then that the State of Telangana realized that the order has been passed against the State of A.P., implementation has been sought against the state of Telangana, which led to the filing of the Review I.A.No.2 of 2024 by the State of Telangana. [t is this review petition which stood allowed vide the impugned order dated L6.og.zo25. The review petition was allowed recailing the earlier order dated 21.12.2023 on the ground that the High court for the state of Telangana did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the writ petition for the reason that the appellant was working in the territories which now fall in the new. State of Andhra pradesh. The alleged misconduct committed also was in the territories, which fall in the state of Andhra Pradesh and the o.A that was filed before the Tribunal was against the new state of Andhra praclesh. The state of Telangana was not a party. The review court alrowed the review petition recalling its earlier order dated 21.12.2023 and it has ordered for ua' 5 the matter to be placed before the Honble the Chiel' Justice for further necessary action in the said pending writ petitiorr.

7. Considering the fact that the O.A originally having been filed subsequent to the bifurcation of the two States and the O.A being filed only against the new State of Andhra pradesh and its Officers and moreover the appellant is said to have been committed the said misconduct while working in the territories of the new State of Andhra Pradesh and that the appellant's last place of posting also being Anantapur which again falls in the new State of Andhra Pradesh, we are of the considered opinion that the view expressed by the learned Single Bench while allowing the review petition and recalling its earlier order dated Zl .12.2023 was perfectly proper, legal and justified so far as the aspect of jurisdiction is.concemed and it does not warrant any interference.

8. Leamed counsel for the appellant relied upon rhe judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER vs. B. SUBBA RAYUDU 6 AND oTHERst. considering the factuar matrix of the case there, particularry taking note of the submissions made by the counsel for respondent No.l therein i.e., the originar writ petitioner, the person seem to have been origina[y appointecr as an Assistant Director in the territories which fail in the state of Telangana, he had creared the examination conducted by the unified State of Andhra pradesh and the matter was pertaining to the auocation of an emproyee on the creation of the two States and it was in this context that the said judgment was decided, whereas the facts of trre instant case were entirely different, more particularry for the reason that the originar application before the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunar itself was filed subsequent to the bifurcation and rerief was sought only against the newry estabrisrred State of.Andhra pradesh and the state of Telarlgana was not made a party, which itserf wourd go to establish that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of ^8. subba Rayudu(supra) and others is distinguishable on facts of the present case. ,(2022)16 scc 37 7

9. The present writ appeal, thus, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending. if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA DEPUWREG SECTION FICER To, TJ LS

1. One CC to Sri D. Linga Rao, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Services l, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies \q. HIGH COURT DATED:2711012025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1184 ot 2025 o(1r r''r Sla 16' It I o , -t- .) 21 il6Uil0 t aIsPATCH eO ,. G. z DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS G-dd #*