IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26693 of 2008 Between: T.Janaki Rao S/o.T.Machanna Marine Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Chairman, Personnel Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, O/o. Competent Authority, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Deputy Conservator, Marine Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Inquiry Officer, Fire Officer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. 4 Smt.T.Ramanamma W/o.T.Janaki Rao H.No.1231, Type-1, 44B, Port Quarters, Saligrampuram, Visakhapatnam. .RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVAS EMANI Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: MR A.KRISHNAM RAJU Counsel for respondent NO.4: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased in the interest of justice to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order to suspend the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the first respondent vide memorandum No.QPER/D-Cell/Marine/TJR/1313/07, dated 23.1.2008 forwarded by the second respondent vide No.QMAR/A/Disc/583/2008, dated 2.2.2008 on the complaint made by the fourth respondent dated 12.11.2007 till the finality of the criminal proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent in C.C.No.797 of 2008 on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam to render substantial justice.” At the hearing, Sri A.Krishnam Raju, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3, submitted that after the filing of the present writ petition, respondent No.3, the Enquiry Officer, submitted his report to respondent No.2, who is the disciplinary authority, and that no final order has been passed as yet. Having regard to this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies, in the event an adverse order is passed against him in the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as withdrawn, WPMP No.34950 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd April, 2009 vrn