Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Reddyvari Soma Sekhar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4171 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4171 AP
Judgement Date : 22 October, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Reddyvari Soma Sekhar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 2021
Bench: D.V.S.S.Somayajulu
                               1




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

             WRIT PETITION No.12096 of 2021

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out without

going deeper into the merits of the matter and without

prejudice to any of his contentions that the order of extension

of suspension / review the suspension order does not contain

any reasons whatsoever. He points out that the order is filed

along with the counter affidavit. According to the learned

counsel this order was not served upon the petitioner also.

He states that in any order which has civil consequence

reasons should always been mentioned. He also relies upon

the citations and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India which mandate that the reasons should be

given whenever orders having civil consequences are passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this order

dated 07.05.2021 is going to be in force till 06.11.2021. It is

his contention that if the respondents find any legal reasons

for extending the suspension the same should be extended by

a speaking order containing the reasons. Learned counsel

submits that if reasons are furnished the petitioner would be

in a position to either challenge or accept the same. The

absence of reasons according to him is itself a ground to set

aside the order. But as the same was not served on him and

he had no knowledge of the same till the counter was filed,

learned counsel submits he could not challenge the said order

dated 07.05.2021. Therefore, learned counsel submits that

the petitioner is entitled to relief as prayed for and he should

be reinstated into services.

Learned Government Pleader for Services-I on the other

hand strongly objects to the prayer. According to him a

serious case is registered against the petitioner and the

gravity of offence cannot be overlooked. He also submits that

the petitioner is an Inspector of Police and, therefore, there is

a danger that he may tamper with the evidence or influence

the witnesses also. He also submits that it is clear that the

power to extend the suspension is vested with the

respondents. He points out that it is only the exercise of the

power that is in question and not the existence of the powers.

Therefore, he submits that till the respondents take a firm

decision on the subject the petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

After considering both the submissions, this Court is of

the opinion that the learned Government Pleader has made

out a point. However, the fact remains that the earlier order

dated 07.05.2021 does not contain any reasons. In the

counter affidavit that is filed in paragraph 6 it is mentioned

that the suspension was extended because of the criminal

case under investigation. This reason is, however, not

mentioned in the order by review of the suspension dated

07.05.2021. As per the settled law on the subject

improvements cannot be made to the order. The order should

be read on its own.

Irrespective of the same since the extension of the

suspension will expire on 06.11.2021 this Court is of the

opinion that in line with the prayer made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, interest's of justice would be sub

served if any further order is passed it should contain the

reasons for the extension. Since the respondents did not

exercise their power as yet compelling them to act in a

particular manner is not called for at this stage. However,

this Court is of the opinion that in view of the settled law on

the subject a direction can be issued to the respondents to

furnish clear and categorical reasons in case they wish to

extend the period of suspension of the petitioner.

With these observations the Writ Petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending,

if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:22.10.2021.

Ssv

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter