IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.10789 of 2010 Between: K.N. Kishore, S/o Appa Rao .. Petitioner AND The Transport Commissioner, Transport Bhavan, Hyderabad and 2 others .. Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking Certiorari to quash the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 23-03-2010 in O.A.No.1143 of 2010 dismissing the same and also to declare the articles of charge issued vide charge memo No.8425/V3/2007-2 dated 05-04-2009 by the respondents as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector at Integrated Check Post of Ichapuram, Ichapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District during the year 2007, the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities conducted surprise check on the night of 23/24- 11-2007 from 03.00hrs, on the allegation of the officials of Integrated Check Post, Purushothapuram indulging in collection of mamools from the crew of transport vehicles. It was alleged that the petitioner was absent from duty on that day without obtaining any prior permission or leave, for which he was issued a charge memo dated 05-04-2009 nearly after lapse one and half year after the date of raid by ACB authorities, which was received by him on 05-01-2010. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 02-02- 2010 to the said charge explaining reasons for not attending the duty on that day. Further, it is alleged that his case for promotion was considered and deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 15-11-2008 referring to the earlier charges levelled against him and the consequential punishments therefor. When his case for promotion was deferred second time during the panel year of 2009-2010 by the Departmental Promotion Committee again referring to the earlier charges based on the charge memo issued dated 05-04-2009, the writ petitioner filed O.A.1143 of 2010 challenging the Articles of Charge dated 05-04- 2009 issued by the respondents and its continuance since from two and half years. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. by its order dated 23-03-2010. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the Tribunal could not have formed any basis the earlier charges allegedly framed against him on different occasions, which were annulled later by the Tribunal in appropriate proceedings in passing the impugned order inasmuch as the challenge before the Tribunal is only against the correctness of the Articles of charge dated 05-04- 2009 issued by the respondents. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II in opposition vehemently contended that in view of pendency of the earlier charges levelled against the writ petitioner, he cannot be considered to have eligible for promotion as per the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.257, GAD, dated 10-06- 1999, which formed the basis for the Tribunal in passing the impugned order, and hence, the impugned order needs no interference. Basing on the rival contentions, the only point that is left to be determined herein is whether the writ petitioner suffers any prejudice for non-consideration of his case for promotion? It is seen from the material on record that the writ petitioner was alleged to have absent from duty without obtaining any leave or permission from the authorities on 24-11-2007 when the ACB authorities conducted raid at the place where he was working, for which he was issued the impugned Articles of charge dated 05-04- 2009. The Articles of charge did not disclose about the indulgence of the writ petitioner in illegal gratification alleged to have been attributed to him and what was alleged against him only is his absence on the date of the said raid. It is also evident from the record that when the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 15-11-2008 for the panel year 2008-2009 to consider the eligible candidates to be promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspectors in which the petitioner was considered and rejected referring to the earlier charges levelled and the consequential punishments imposed against him. When the earlier charges levelled against him were admittedly set aside in the earlier proceedings, it is not open either for the Departmental Promotion Committee or the concerned authorities to refer the earlier charges while considering his case for promotion. Further, the present impugned charge was issued nearly after lapse of one and half year after the alleged raid by ACB officials. It is incomprehensible as to why the authorities have not issued the impugned charge at the relevant time. More over, the present impugned charge memo is simple in nature where the enquiry shall be completed within three months in accordance with C.C.A. Rules. But, the authorities did not complete the enquiry and kept the matter pending without any valid reason. It is not known as to why the enquiry was not completed within the stipulated period of three months. It is well settled that an employee cannot be suffered or penalized due to the inordinate and undue delay on the part of the Department in completing the enquiry within the stipulated period. Under the circumstances, having regard to the facts and circumstances and the pendency of the present Articles of charge dated 05-04-2009 on which the petitioner was denied for promotion, we deem it appropriate to direct respondents 1 and 2 to complete the enquiry pending against the writ petitioner for the charge memo dated 05-04-1999 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of default of the Department in completing the enquiry within the aforesaid period directed above, the writ petitioner shall be considered for promotion without referring to the charge memo dated 05-04-2009. The writ petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the enquiry authorities and no delay shall be attributable on the part of the petitioner so as to take undue advantage of the order passed by this Court. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-06-2010 Ksn