HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED W.P.No.1805 of 2000 O R D E R: Challenging the action of the 1st respondent ie., Registrar, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hydrabad in issuing Memo.No.54973/OP/A4/98 dated 31.01.2000, the present Writ Petition is filed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Supervisor in the Panchayat Raj Department in October, 1965. On retrenchment from the Panchayat Rj Department, he was appointed in the 1st respondent Univeristy in August, 1968 as a Supervisor and his services were also regularised and absorbed by the earlier service rendered in the Panchayat Raj Department. Subsequently he was promoted as Junior Engineer and as Deputy Executive Engineer. The petitioner was qualified for promotion as Estate Officer. The respondents with a view to overlook his case, have making wild, reckless allegations and issuing Memos. The petitioner replied to the said memos and offers his explanation to the same. The petitioner filed W.P.No.733 of 2000 before this Court when the respondents sought to appoint the 3rd respondent by way of deputation as Estate Officer. This Court was pleased to suspend his appointment by the order dated 31.01.2000. The 1st respondent as a counter-blast to the order passed by this Court, issued proceedings in Memo.No. 54973/OP/A4/98 dated 31.01.2000 by a note file prepared by the 3rd respondent and suspended the petitioner for an alleged irregularities, pending enquiry. The said matters were all replied to and the respondents were fully satisfied and did not proceed further in the matter by appointing any Enquiry Officer or to get the same enquired into, inspite of issuing charge memos. The 3rd respondent who was newly posted and forcibly occupied the post, appears to have prepared a note file to get the impugned proceedings issued, on coming to know that his deputation orders were suspended by this Court. The respondents are contemplating in appointing the 2nd respondent as the Estate Officer, who is a Dy.Executive Engineer now, and who is junior to him. The respondents have been harassing the petitioner and victimising him for claiming appointment/promotion as Estate Officer. The respondents have so far not released his salary for the month of January, 2000. The impugned order dated 31.01.2000 is wholly irrelevant and totally unsustainable as neither the charges are grave nor do they involve any financial irregularities. It is needless to mention that the petitioner himself stated in the affidavit that the 1st respondent herein as a counter-blast of the order passed by this Court, issued proceedings dated 31.01.2000 by way of a note file prepared by the 3rd respondent and suspended him for an alleged irregularities, pending enquiry. It is also stated that the respondents did not proceed further in the matter by way of appointing an Enquiry Officer or to get the same enquired into in spite of issuing charge memos. Therefore, this Court can only direct the authorities to appoint an Enquiry Officer, if not already appointed and complete the same as early as possible and take further action in the matter, if so advised. Since the writ petition is a premature one, as it is filed on an apprehension, I consider it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition by directing the respondents to appoint an Enquiry Officer, if not already appointed and complete the same in accordance with law as early as possible, if so advised, at this length of time. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 25th November, 2010. PNV