IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18443 of 1998 Between: K. D. Agarwal S/o. Late Kadernath R/o. 18, Commercial Complex, Ground Floor, S.D.Road, Secunderabad- 500 003. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 U.P.Export Corporation Limited, (A.U.P.State Govt undertakig Rep. by the Managing Director, B-27, Sarvodayanagar, KANPUR-208 005. 2 Board of Directors, U.P.Export Corporation Limited Rep. by its Chairman, B-27, Sarvodayanagar, Kanpur. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the orders of the respondent Corporation dated 21.3.1998 in order No. SEC/K-14/5733 and consequently directed the respondent Corporation to reinstate the Petitioner into service and further direct the respondent to pay back wages from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement and further seniority and otehr benefits with interest forthwith, and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.V.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : MR.NOUSHAD ALI The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner, who worked as a Senior Manager in the U.P.Export Corporation Limited, a State Government undertaking of Utter Pradesh Government, has filed this writ petition, challenging the order, dated 21st March 1998, passed by the respondents, and seeks further directions to the respondents for payment of backwages to him. 2. The petitioner has suffered an order of dismissal by way of punishment in the disciplinary proceedings, by an order dated 15th of May 1993. At that point of time, he was working in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He has questioned the said order of dismissal by way of writ petition in W.P.No.8705 of 1994. This Court, by an order dated 21st of April 1997, while setting aside the orders of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, has directed the respondents to appoint an inquiry officer pursuant to show cause notice issued to the petitioner, and provide a defence assistant to him. Further directions were issued to the effect that the inquiry should be completed within a period of six months. It is stated that the said order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.8705 of 1994 was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.928 of 1997, by an order dated 04.09.1997, and further confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by an order, dated 27th January 1998, passed in S.L.P.No.589 of 1998. 3. Thereafter, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 21st March 1998, appointing one Sri Mani Prasad Mishra, General Manager, as an inquiry officer, to conduct inquiry, and the petitioner is also ordered to be under suspension by the aforesaid order. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was reinstated into service only on 24.11.2000, and was posted in Utter Pradesh, and till then, only subsistence allowance was paid, but arrears of salary are not paid to him. 5. Heard Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri Noushad Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. In this writ petition, the order, dated 21st of March 1998, is questioned on the ground that though six months time was fixed by this Court vide orders dated 21st of April 1997, passed in W.P.No.8705 of 1994 for completion of inquiry, the impugned order is passed after expiry of the said period. Further, directions were also sought for on the ground that till the reinstatement on 24.11.2000, he is entitled for full salary. 7. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented on behalf of the respondents that subsequent to filing of this writ petition, an order of termination was also passed on 15.09.2001, against which, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and it is pending before the Lucknow Bench. It is stated that even in the said writ petition filed before the High Court of Allahabad, the petitioner has sought for directions for payment of arrears of salary and for further relief of restraining the respondents from proceeding further in pursuance of the charge sheet issued in the disciplinary proceedings. 8. Though it is contended by Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the said writ petition is confined to the validity of the termination order, but a copy of the writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court, is placed before this Court. In the said writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs : “i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 15.9.2001 contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue to work and discharge his duties on the post of Senior Manager in the Corporation. iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to pay the full salary and allowances attached to the post of Senior Manager to the petitioner each and every month as and when the same falls due with all consequential benefits and arrears of full salary, etc. iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby restraining the opposite parties from proceeding in any manner in pursuance to the charge sheet in question. v) such other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature of the case, may also be passed.” Further, in the body of the affidavit, in Paragraph 21, the petitioner has also pleaded that while passing the orders, dated 21st March 1998, respondents were silent with regard to backwages from 1993 to 1998. 9. As much as the petitioner has filed the writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, seeking comprehensive reliefs subsequent to filing of this writ petition, the petitioner can as well agitate the reliefs sought for, before the High Court of Allahabad. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for payment of arrears of salary, but in the writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court, he has questioned the order of termination, dated 15.09.2001, apart from seeking for payment of arrears of salary from 1993 onwards, and the same is evident from the relief sought for in the said writ petition. Though the validity of the order dated 21st March 1998 is questioned in the present writ petition, the learned counsel for petitioner has not pressed the writ petition so far as the validity of the said order dated 21st March 1998 is concerned. Though the learned counsel has argued for issuance of directions for payment of backwages, but as the matter is under consideration of the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner cannot seek this relief for payment of backwages before this Court in the present writ petition. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, without expressing any opinion on the entitlement of petitioner to arrears of salary till his reinstatement, I reject this writ petition only on the ground that the petitioner has already approached the Allahabad High Court for a comprehensive relief, including the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th February 2009. ajr