IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 25974 of 2006 Between: 1 The Chief Commissoner of Land Administration, A.P. Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy 3 The Govt. of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND J. Sangappa, Deputy Tahsildar, O/o. District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy .....RESPONDENT 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 appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, passed in OA No. 1244/2006, dated 12-10-2006, as being erroneous, irregular and unreasonable and quash the same and pass such further or other order/orders as deem ﬁt and proper in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.BALA KISHAN RAO ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No. 1244 of 2006 dated 12.10.2006 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and consequently hold that the applicant is not entitled for promotion/appointment by transfer to the post of Tahsildar in preference to his juniors, in view of pendency of disciplinary/disproportionate assets case. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent- applicant who was working as Deputy Tahsildar in Revenue Establishment in Medak District was suspended vide proceedings of the District Collector in Proc. No. A3/1638/2002, dated 1.5.2002 in view of the ACB registering a case, on the allegation of possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of income. In view of the Government instructions issued in Memo No. 64678/Vig.1(1)/2001, Rev., dated 2.7.2004, the applicant was reinducted into service, vide proceedings of the District Revenue Oﬃcer, Medak dated 21.7.2004. It seems, his case was not considered for promotion to the post of Tahsildar in view of the pendency of the proceedings with ACB, on the allegation of possession of disproportionate assets. The Commissioner of Land Administration issued proceedings dated 24.3.2005 deferring the case of the applicant. Aggrieved by the same he ﬁled O.A.No. 1512 of 2003 and the Tribunal gave an interim direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion as Tahsildar in accordance with the rules and keeping in view the orders issued in G.O.Ms.NO. 66, GAD dated 30.1.1991. However, ﬁnally O.A was dismissed on 14.11.2005, the order reads as under: “In the circumstances, the interim orders dated 7.4.2005 are hereby vacated. VMA., 821/2005 is accordingly allowed. The O.A., itself is dismissed, as the action of the respondents in not promotion the applicant cannot be said to be in violation of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No. 257, GA(Ser.C) Department, dated 10.6.1999.” It is submitted that the respondents have passed further orders in proceedings dated 5.8.2005, wherein it is stated that the applicant J. Sangappa (D.T) of Medak District was informed that his name for inclusion in the regular panel of D.Ts for the year 1996-97 of Medak District and subsequent promotion as Tahsildar will be considered as and when he is fully exonerated from the disciplinary cases pending against him before the IPE & ACB Court. Aggrieved by the same, he ﬁled the present O.A. No. 1244 of 2006. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders dated 5.8.2005 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and directed the respondents to issue necessary orders of promotion to the applicant, on par with his juniors within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Aggrieved by the same, respondents in O.A filed the present Writ Petition. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners contended that since the proceedings are pending before the ACB with regard to the disproportionate assets, the Tribunal ought not to have given a direction to consider the case of the applicant-respondent on par with his juniors. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that no charge sheet was ﬁled in the criminal court and no departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent by serving a charge memo etc., therefore, the tribunal was justiﬁed in directing the petitioners herein to consider the case of the respondent. In the above circumstances, having given our anxious consideration, we are of the view that the Tribunal has considered the matter objectively and held that no charge memo was communicated and no enquiry was conducted and hence, set aside the impugned orders dated 5.8.2005 and directed the petitioners herein to issue necessary orders of promotion to the applicant therein, on par with his juniors within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. When no charge sheet was ﬁled or any departmental proceedings were initiated for such a long period, there was no option before the tribunal except to pass the impugned order. Therefore, we do not ﬁnd any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED ,J ___________________________ C.V.RAMULU, J Dt. 07.08.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. CC to G.P. for Services –II, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. 2. 2CD copies