IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 855 of 2010 BETWEEN: Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. ... PETITIONERS AND A. Bhaskjar Rao and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES - II Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR. M. RATNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) The applicant in O.A.No.7426 of 2005, which is the subject matter of WP.No.487 of 2010 decided today, also filed another O.A.No.7377 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the relief as follows: “For the reasons stated, it is, therefore, prayed that this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to consider the representation dated 10.06.2009 to declare the Memo No.11771/Vig.1/2005-06 dated 17.10.2005 issued by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion on regular basis or in-charge basis or additional charge basis to the cadre of Executive Engineer…” 2. The said OA was allowed by the tribunal suspending the charge memo and directed the writ petitioner – State to consider the case of the applicant for promotion as Executive Engineer. The said order appears to have been passed practically at the admission stage without benefit of a counter affidavit on behalf of the State. Further, though the quashment of the charge memo was sought for by the applicant, the tribunal had suspended the charge memo while passing the final order. 3. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant tried to demonstrate that the very charge memo is unsustainable, as the imputation of the charge against him relates to the period June 1997 to December 1998 and the charge itself is issued in 2005. The inspection of the Deputy Director of Engineering, ACB, appears to have taken place on 05.09.2001 i.e. almost four years after the completion of the work and based on the said inspection after another four years, the charge memo is issued. The applicant, therefore, submitted that on the basis of such frivolous and unsustainable charge his case for promotion is not being considered. He also stated that there are no documents before the tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, which is suppose to conduct the disciplinary proceedings and as such, for no fault of the applicant, the disciplinary proceedings are unreasonably delayed that too on a charge of the above nature whereas the juniors to the applicant are getting promoted. 5. We have considered similar questions with respect to the right of the employee for consideration of promotion when the disciplinary case is pending and in our decisions in STATE OF A.P. v. A. RAMULU[1] and SPECIAL CHIEF SECY. To GOVT. OF A.P., REV. (SER.I) DEPT v. V.V. KUMAR[2] as well as in WP.No.22714 of 2009 and batch decided today, we have held that G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 has to be scrupulously applied. However, the aforesaid decisions relate to all such OA’s where the only relief sought for by the respective applicants was for consideration of his case for promotion without reference to the charge memo. In the present OA, the relief sought for is different viz. quashment of charge memo. As held by the Supreme Court in STATE OF AP v. N. RADHAKISHAN[3] the tribunal will have to examine this case keeping in view all the facts and circumstances. The tribunal cannot merely suspend the charge memo by the final order passed in the OA. If the charge memo remains only under suspension without quashment the writ petitioner – State will never be able to revive the same and proceed in the disciplinary case, as the tribunal has passed final orders of suspension. In the light of the ratio in Radhakishan’s case (3 supra) the tribunal is obliged to consider the merits of the OA and decide on the facts and circumstances of this case as to whether the charge memo deserves to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay or on such other grounds as urged by the applicant. 6. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order in O.A.No.7377 of 2009 dated 17.07.2009 is liable to be set aside and is therefore, set aside and the OA is remitted back for fresh consideration to the tribunal, which shall hear and decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Since the OA is pending from 2009, we would request the Tribunal to dispose of O.A., preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 4th, 2010 DSK [1] 2010 (1) ALD 144 (DB) [2] 2010 (1) ALD 746 (DB) [3] AIR 1998 SC 1833