IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.17161 of 2010 Between: Sri V. Pundareekachari ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad-500022 and others .....RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.17161 of 2010 ORDER: (Per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.2009 of the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (the Tribunal), in O.A.No.7525 of 2005. The petitioner filed the O.A. seeking invalidation of the charge memo dated 21.07.1995 and the final order issued by the Collector, Chittoor, in proceedings dated 21.04.2007; to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, for being arbitrary in view of the long lapse of time in concluding the disciplinary proceedings; and for a direction to the respondents to promote him as a Tahsildar with retrospective effect from the date with effect from which his junior Sri K.Chandraprakash Pillai was so promoted, in March, 2003 with incidental benefits as though disciplinary proceedings were never instituted against him. He challenged the final order passed by the Collector dated 21.04.2007 on the ground that the said order is in derogation of the statutory injunction in Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short – ‘the Act’). The petitioner while substantively holding the post of Deputy Tahsildar was in full additional charge of the Mandal Revenue Officer from 1994-96. The Collector, Chittoor District, issued a charge memo dated 21.07.1995 alleging certain irregularities by the petitioner in distribution of essential commodities during his tenure as Civil Supplies Deputy Tahsildar and in charge of the Tirupati Godown, during 21.10.1993 and 19.03.1994. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 05.08.1995. The District Supply Officer, Chittoor, furnished his remarks on the petitioner’s explanation and recommended for dropping of the charges through his report dated 31.03.1997. A show cause notice was however issued on 16.08.1997 proposing the punishment of reduction to a lower rank as Senior Assistant and for recovery of Rs.40,500/-. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on 26.08.1997. However, no final orders were passed and, therefore, the petitioner initially filed the application for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings and thereafter impugned therein the subsequent order of the District Collector dated 21.04.2007 (passed after the filing of the O.A.) visiting the petitioner with an order of censure apart from directing recovery of an amount of Rs.28,326/-. By the order impugned, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings is not on account of any negligence or lethargy on the part of the employer but on account of the successive applications in stay orders obtained by the applicant in several legal proceedings; hence the disciplinary proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay in concluding them. With regard to the challenge to the order passed by the District Collector, after initiation of the O.A., on 21.04.2007, the Tribunal declined to interfere on the ground that the petitioner has an appellate remedy under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the petitioner must pursue the remedy. The petitioner reiterates herein the contentions rejected by the Tribunal. In addition, it is contended that as Section 19(4) of the Act enjoins to every proceeding, under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject matter of an application pending immediately before the admission of O.A. by the Tribunal shall abate, the Collector had no competence to pass a final order in the disciplinary proceedings after the institution and admission of O.A.No.7525 of 2005. This is a contention that is stated to be rejected. The provisions of Section 19(4) of the Act, as a true and fair construction, do not eclipse the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer in a pending disciplinary proceedings. What all Section 19(4) of the Act enjoins is that any representation of an aggrieved employee having a nexus with the subject matter of an application pending and admitted before the Tribunal shall not be processed and shall abate. This is to ensure that there is no conflict of decisions, one by the employer pertaining to an application seeking redressal of the grievance and the other by the Tribunal. This provision does not expressly or by any compelling implication disentitle the Collector to pass a final order in a disciplinary proceedings. We concur with the order of the Tribunal, the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in rejecting the O.A. that the delay in conclusion of the proceedings was not on account of lapses of the employer/respondent herein, but on account of the successive litigative campaigns by the petitioner and the successive applications made by him on one pretext or the other to stall further proceedings. There are no merits. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 19th July 2010 CVRK