IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6494 of 2009 Between: M. Maheswara Rao, s/o. M. Appala Swamy, (Technical) O/o. Asst. Engineer, The A.P. State Housing Corporation, Palasa (Post) Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Managing Director, AP State Housing Corporation Ltd. Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent:MR.K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not considering the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, as illegal. The petitioner is working as Work Inspector (Technical) in the respondent Corporation. He faced disciplinary proceedings in 1999, which resulted in passing of final order, dated 28.02.2008 whereby he was dismissed from service. The appeal filed by him against the said order was allowed by the State Government, which is the appellate authority, vide G.O.Rt.No.261, dated 03.10.2008. While so allowing, the appellate authority set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner and directed the respondent to conduct de novo enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. The respondent has appointed one T.Ramesh, Executive Engineer (Housing), Srikakulam, as enquiry officer to conduct a de novo enquiry vide memo, dated 02.03.2009 issued by its Managing Director. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that on the ground of pendency of enquiry, he is not being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. At the hearing, Sri Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in New Bank of India v. N.P.Sehgal and another[1] and of this Court, to which I am a party, in The Joint Director of Pension Payment v. M.Mahender, Junior Assistant, Office of Assistant Pension Payment Office, Hyderabad[2]. Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the charges against the petitioner are grave in nature and there is no laxity on the part of the respondent in concluding the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner is not entitled to be promoted and a fresh enquiry is to be made against him. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that on the facts of this case, no direction can be issued to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. The charges pertain to misappropriation of steel and cement worth Rs.1.99 lakh, disobedience of superior officers and misleading of the superior officers by inciting the villagers and submitting false reports. Though the enquiry was kept pending for nearly 9 years, final order was passed in 2008 dismissing the petitioner from service. With the interference of the appellate authority, a de novo enquiry is again initiated. On these facts, the judgments referred to above do not help the petitioner. In New Bank of India (1 supra), the employer’s plea that initiation of disciplinary proceedings disentitled the employee for his further promotion was rejected. However, the Supreme Court observed that mere fact that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or under consideration against an employee does not constitute a good ground for not considering the employee concerned for promotion, if he is in the zone of consideration nor would it constitute a good ground for denying the promotion if the employee is considered otherwise fit for promotion. These observations do not advance the case of the petitioner, because not only an enquiry was earlier held but also a final order was passed and due to the intervention by the appellate authority, a fresh enquiry is again initiated. In the Joint Director of Pension Payment (2 supra), there was inordinate delay in finalising the disciplinary proceedings. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which was moved by the aggrieved employee, while refusing to quash the disciplinary proceedings, however, directed the respondent to consider the employee for promotion without reference to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. For the same reasons referred to above, the said judgment also on facts does not help the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the respondent has to follow the sealed cover procedure. Since the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded for the last ten years, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the respondent is directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings in a time bound manner in order to ensure that the petitioner’s case for promotion receives consideration at the earliest possible time. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent to complete the enquiry and pass final order therein within a period of three (3) months from today. The petitioner shall extend all his cooperation for early completion of enquiry. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.8495 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th MARCH, 2009. kvni [1] (1991) 2 SCC 220 [2] Writ Petition No.2995 of 2007