HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITIONS No : 8041 & 8362 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioners herein have filed these two Writ Petitions, questioning the legality and validity of the order, dated 24.02.2010 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.Nos. 254 of 2010 and 6093 of 2009. The case of the petitioners is that while the 1st respondent was working as a Senior Assistant in the Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, a charge memo dated 02.03.2005 framing charges to the effect that when the ACB authorities surprised the office on 05.03.2004, he was found to have employed one private person by name Sri M.B. Gopala Krishna to collect bribes from the persons coming for registration of new vehicles and thus, he collected bribe of Rs.12,950/- on behalf of the staff members, including the 1st respondent. Further, another charge memo dated 11.09.2006 alleging that fraudulent practices were adopted for reservation of Registration numbers in the Office of the Joint Transport Commissioner & S/RTA, Hyderabad (Central) and that enquiries into the same are pending. While so, the 1st respondent herein has filed O.A. 6093 of 2009 seeking to declare the action of the respondents therein in not considering his case for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, without reference to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against him and also not concluding the disciplinary enquiries as per the instructions of the Government, as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When the matter came up for admission, the Tribunal has directed the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, if he is otherwise eligible, qualified and comes within the zone of consideration, in accordance with the rules, without reference to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, vide charge memos dated 02.03.2005 and 11.09.2006. The 1st respondent has also filed O.A.No. 254 of 2020 seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his case for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, in spite of the orders dated 20.05.2009 in O.A.No. 6093 of 2009 of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after placing reliance upon the various policy decisions taken by the Government vide G..O.Ms.No. 424, dated 25.05.1976 and G.O.Ms.No. 257, dated 10.06.1999, directed the respondents therein to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer without reference to the charge memos dated 02.03.2005 and 11.09.2006. Aggrieved by the said decision taken by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed these two Writ Petitions. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II has vehemently contended that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in arriving at the conclusion as recorded in the impugned order. According to him, when the name of the 1st respondent was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee on 20.01.2010 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, it deferred the name to be included in the panel. He submits that the departmental enquiry contemplated or pending can be a ground for withholding consideration for promotion or the promotion itself. In support thereof, he has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tejinder Singh[1]. He further relied upon a decision in Union of India v. K.V.Janakiraman[2], whereunder the Supreme Court held that promotion can be withheld for selection posts, if the charge memos have already been issued or the case is pending in a Court of law prior to the meeting of the DPC. He further contends that the Tribunal erred in interpreting G.O.Ms.No. 424, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 25.05.1976 and G.O.Ms. No. 257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, inasmuch as in the above said G.Os., it is mentioned that the officers categorized under item (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.424 should be considered for ad hoc promotion after completion of two years from the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee or Screening Committee meeting in which their cases were considered for the first time. According to him, the 1st respondent appeared before the DPC on 20.01.2010 and that therefore, two years time has not elapsed from that date. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contends that the executive instructions insist that when a disciplinary enquiry is pending against an employee, it has to be completed in a stipulated time frame. According to him, under the guise of the disciplinary proceedings against the employee, the right of the said employee for promotion cannot be denied. In support of his contention, he has drawn our attention to the judgments rendered by various Division Benches of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 705 of 2007, 4770 of 2008 and 19043 of 2008 and that of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal[3]. He further contends that not even preliminary enquiry into the allegations levelled against the 1st respondent was completed and in that view of the matter, deferring consideration of the officer for promotion by Screening Committee is illegal. He relied in support of his contention the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh[4]. In view of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, we have considered the matter after giving our earnest consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. The 1st charge against the 1st respondent is that he has employed a private person in the office for collecting bribes and the 2nd charge is with regard to allocation of reservation numbers. With regard to the 1st charge, only final order has to be passed. Regarding the 2nd charge, the enquiry is pending. The disciplinary authority has to act diligently in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and the executive instructions and complete the enquiry in stipulated time frame. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that when a person is facing the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority has to complete the same. We have considered this matter very elaborately and we found that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners in completing the disciplinary proceedings. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The authorities have to consider and pass final orders on the disciplinary proceedings, failing which, the order dated 24.02.2010 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos. 254 of 2010 and 6093 of 2009 shall stand. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) --------------------------- (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 20th April 2010 ksld 1. ..... REGISTRAR 2. // TRUE COPY // 3. SECTION OFFICER To 4. 1) 2 CD copies 5. Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} [1] (1991) 4 SCC 129 [2] AIR 1991 SC 2010 [3] (1995) 2 SCC 570 [4] AIR 1990 SC 1308