THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.Nos.8145 and 8146 of 2011 COMMON ORDER (per Sri Ghulam Mohammed, J) Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of together by this common order. 2. The first respondent, while working as Town Planning Supervisor, Khammam Municipality, was placed under suspension on the ground of negligence towards official duties vide proceedings dated 20.11.2010, of the third respondent. Challenging the said proceedings, she filed O.A.No.8320 of 2010 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Through order dated 02.12.2010, the Tribunal directed the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of the said order, failing which, the first respondent shall stand re-inducted into service. Since respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not complied with the said direction, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 04.03.2011, revoking her suspension and directed the petitioner to allow the first respondent to join duty. It is stated that though the first respondent made a representation on 05.03.2011 seeking to permit her to join duty, the petitioner is not allowing her to do so. Hence, she filed another O.A.No.1530 of 2011 before the Tribunal, which in turn passed an interim order on 16.03.2011, directing the petitioner to admit the first respondent to duty as Town Planning Supervisor in Khammam Municipality in pursuance of her posting orders dated 04.03.2011. Challenging the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.8320 of 2010 and 1530 of 2011, the petitioner filed both these writ petitions. 3 . Heard the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for the petitioner contended that though the Tribunal in O.A.No.8320 of 2010 fixed timeframe to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, in O.A.No.8321 of 2010, which was filed against the similar suspension proceedings, directed the applicant to file appeal before the second respondent. He submitted that as the charges framed against the first respondent are severe in nature and as there is involvement of the several officers in the enquiry, the respondents have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings within the prescribed time. He contended that the Tribunal ought not to have directed reinstatement of the first respondent into service at the place where she was suspended as it effects the enquiry and there is every possibility of tampering the records. He seeks to grant two more months time to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. 5. In view of the said submissions of the learned Government Pleader, without going into the merits of the matter, we extend the time granted by the Tribunal to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by two more months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the third respondent shall reinstate the first respondent into service and post her other than the place of her suspension. 6. With the above directions, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:30.03.2011 sj