IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 16018 of 2008 Between: 1 The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Prl. Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad. 3 The Director General of Police, A.P., Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 K.Ramachandran, Attached to Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 G.Nagesheara Rao, Intelligence, Hyderabad. 3 R.Ravinder Reddy, ACP., Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. 4 M.S.Venu Gopal, V & Enforcement, Hyderabad. 5 M.Venkateswara Rao, ACP., Asifnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction calling for the records from the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal relating to order dated 26.6.2008 dismissing V.M.Ano.421 of 208 and allowing O.A.No.1783 of 2008 ﬁled by the original applicant and the consequential order dt.26.6.2008 issued by the Hon'ble Tribunal in C.A.No.285/2008 in O.A.No.1783 of 2008, through which the Petitioners herein are directed to be present before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 24.7.2008 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.16018 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order dated 26-6-2008 dismissing V.M.A.No.421 of 2008 and allowing O.A.No.1783 of 2008 ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent and also the order of even date in C.A.No.285 of 2008 in the same O.A., directing the petitioners herein to be present before the Tribunal. 2. The details relevant and necessary for deciding the writ petition are that ﬁrst respondent – applicant ﬁled the O.A. seeking direction to the oﬃcial respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) on par with his juniors, who were promoted through D.O.No.4640 dated 31-12-2007. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, allowed O.A. and directed the petitioners to conduct review Screening Committee by effecting promotion to the applicant on par with his juniors and issue necessary orders forthwith. The petitioners appear to have not complied with the order and as such, the ﬁrst respondent moved a contempt application against them. The Tribunal had directed the appearance on 24-07-2008 in the contempt case, against which the present writ petition is filed. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court vide order dated 24-7-2008 had ordered notice before admission and also granted interim stay of contempt proceedings in C.A.No.285 of 2008. At that time, learned Special Government Pleader sought time to take decision pursuant to the direction given by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1783 of 2008. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader had produced before us, the Memorandum in Rc.No.498/G3/2008 dated 01-9-2008 to show that the petitioners have complied with the order dated 26-06-2008 passed by the Tribunal and contended that the petitioners have not committed any contempt of the Tribunal. 5. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Tribunal had directed the petitioners to conduct review Screening Committee for eﬀecting promotion to the applicant and pursuant thereto, the petitioners have placed the matter before the Review Screening Committee on 20-8-2008 for considering his case for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police and his case was rejected. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for ﬁrst respondent contended that the claim of the ﬁrst respondent was rejected by the authorities on the same grounds, which were challenged before the Tribunal and such grounds were held as untenable. Learned counsel further contended that the ﬁrst respondent cannot be relegated to approach the Tribunal and that the contempt proceedings may be kept open as the order of the Tribunal has not fully complied with. He also submitted that the ﬁrst respondent was compelled to ﬁle four OAs and his case for promotion was still not considered. 7. Learned counsel for the ﬁrst respondent has also drawn our attention to G.O.Ms.No.66, Genl. Admn. (Services-C) Department, 30-1-1991 to show that the oﬃcers who are facing disciplinary proceedings or involved in a criminal case or whose case falls under the group referred to in para-2(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.424 dated 25-5-1976 shall be deferred, only when the charges are framed by the competent authority and served on the delinquent oﬃcer or a charge-sheet has been ﬁled in the criminal court. The ﬁrst respondent contended that the authority neither framed charges nor any charge-sheet was filed against him, in the criminal court. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The Tribunal had directed the petitioners to conduct the review Screening Committee for eﬀecting promotion of the ﬁrst respondent to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) on par with his juniors. It appears that the said direction was not complied with and this prompted the ﬁrst respondent to initiate contempt proceedings. At that stage, the present writ petition was ﬁled and interim stay was granted in respect of contempt proceedings. In the meanwhile, the petitioners have placed the claim of the ﬁrst respondent before the Review Screening Committee on 28-8-2008 for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Committee rejected his case for promotion vide Memorandum dated 01-9-2008. It is to be noted that the Tribunal has not given positive direction to promote the ﬁrst respondent as Deputy Superintendent of Police. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the contempt proceedings do not survive and the contempt case deserves to be closed, especially when the order of the Tribunal has been complied with and Memo dated 01-9-2008 had been issued. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to disturb the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1783 of 2008. However, since the Memo dated 01-9-2008 was issued rejecting the claim of the petitioner, it gives rise to a fresh cause of action. Therefore, the ﬁrst respondent is at liberty to challenge the Memo dated 01-9-2008 by ﬁling a separate O.A. and avail such other remedies as are open to him in law before the appropriate Forum. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of thereby closing the contempt case before the Tribunal. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 02-09-2008 bsc