THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.3727 of 2006 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 27.02.2003 passed in O.A.No.455 of 2000 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and for quashing the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent, while working as Manual Assistant in the Department of Weights and Measures, was suspended from service vide proceedings dated 27.06.1985, on the ground of misbehaviour with the then Inspector, Weights and Measures, Narasaraopet, in a state of intoxication. After completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the respondent were proved. Based on the enquiry report, the respondent was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 30.01.1988, against which, the appeal preferred by him was rejected vide proceedings dated 16.03.1990. Challenging the same, he filed O.A.No.17611 of 1990 before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of setting aside the proceedings dated 16.03.1990 and remanded the matter to the Government to examine the contention of the respondent that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963 and that the punishment of dismissal from service is wholly disproportionate to the alleged lapses on the part of the respondent. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent made a representation to the petitioners seeking to drop all further proceedings since he has been suffering for a period of 10 years. The petitioners, after considering the matter in detail, ordered reinstatement of the respondent into service treating the non-duty period as dies-non vide proceedings dated 15.06.1998 and accordingly he joined in service on 27.06.1998. Thereafter, the respondent filed a review petition before the petitioners on 15.09.1998 seeking to treat the non-duty period as duty and also to pay the wages, but the same was rejected vide memo dated 03.05.1999. Aggrieved by the same, he filed O.A.No.455 of 2000 before the Tribunal and the same was allowed holding that the period of suspension of the respondent to be treated as duty for the purpose of drawal of pay and allowance obtaining during the period. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. The respondent filed counter stating that in pursuance of the order impugned, the second petitioner issued proceedings dated 11.12.2003 directing the third petitioner to take necessary action as per the orders of the Tribunal and to treat the period of absence i.e., from 30.01.1988, the date of dismissal, to 15.06.1998, the date of reinstatement, as duty period under F.R.54-B(1)(b) for all purposes like continuity of service, except back wages and thereafter, the third petitioner issued memo dated 24.03.2004 directing the Assistant Controller to take necessary action as per the orders of the Tribunal and the second petitioner. It is stated that the petitioners without taking any action thereon, filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondent is not entitled to any relief for treating the non- duty period as duty in terms of FR 54 and 54(A) and that the Tribunal erred in directing the petitioners to treat the period of absence of the respondent, which is more than 10 years, as duty without giving any valid and legal findings. He further contended that since the respondent has neither in the appeal nor in the representation made by him in pursuance to the remand orders passed in O.A.No.17611 of 1990 placed reliance on the provisions of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings Act or the Rules made thereunder, he is not entitled to any relief. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent while reiterating the counter averments contended that the under FR 54B once the order of dismissal is set aside and reinstatement is ordered, the respondent is entitled for continuity of service and all other benefits and that the Tribunal after taking into all the aspects into consideration has rightly passed the order impugned, which needs no interference by this Court. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that in pursuance of the order impugned, the second petitioner issued proceedings dated 11.12.2003 directing the third petitioner to take immediate action in the matter treating the period of absence of the respondent i.e., from 30.01.1988 to 15.06.1998 as duty period under F.R.54-B(1)(b) for all purposes like continuity of service, except back wages. When once the petitioners have issued the said proceedings for taking necessary action as per the order impugned, they have not justified in filing the writ petition against the same order and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Further, the Tribunal has rightly observed that prior to the amendment Act 6/93, the provisions under the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings are mandatory and as per Rule 4 of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings Rules, the disciplinary proceedings shall be only through the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings but not departmental proceedings and that contrary to the provisions of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings Act and Rules, the punishment was awarded to the respondent by way of departmental proceedings. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:25.02.2010 SJ