IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 25470 of 2008 Between: 1 The Govt. of A.P. Rep by its Director Treasuries and Accounts Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Director of Pension Payment Office, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 T. Ram Singh, Retd. Sr. Accountant, R/o. No. 22-1-411/412 Haiza Apartments, Kallakbar, Chaderghat, Hyderabad. 2 The Accountant General A.P., Hyderabad. (R.2 is formal party, as no relief is sought in against him) .....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 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 AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA No. 1808/2008 dated 29-4-2008 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for Respondent No.1:SRI S. SATYANARAYANA RAO . The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 29.04.2008 passed in O.A.No.1808 of 2008 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent is a retired employee. While he was working as Junior Accounts Officer under the control of the Joint Director of Pension Payment Office, the second respondent issued a charge memo dated 10.02.2004 to him on the ground of fraudulent withdrawals and he was responsible for the loss of Rs.5,888/- to the exchequer, for which, he submitted an explanation in February, 2004 denying the charge framed against him. Even after a lapse of 10 years from the date of the above said charge memo, the petitioners are not completing the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the first respondent filed above said O.A. before the Tribunal seeking to quash the said charge memo and to release his pensionary benefits including gratuity, commutation etc., with interest and the same was disposed of in terms of the order dated 13.02.2008 passed in O.A.Nos.7131 and 6283 of 2007, wherein the Tribunal directed the respondents therein to proceed with the appointment of the enquiry officer or refer the matter to the Commissioner of Enquiries and shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the applicants therein within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, failing which, the disciplinary proceedings should be deemed to have been dropped. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The first respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that though his name was included at Sl.No.21 in the general category list record and approved for posting him as superintending engineer by placing him at Sl.No.17 in the list, his name was not considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on In-charge basis and is juniors were posted as Superintending Engineers. It is further stated that unless a charge memo is served on the first respondent, he cannot be denied for promotion and that several persons on earlier occasions were posted to higher posts by following G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 30.01.1991. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the material on record. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have initiated sue-moto contempt proceedings against the petitioner solely on the ground that he is not guiding the Court. He further contended tin the absense of any finding regarding violation of any order of the Court, no proceedings for civil contempt are permissible under Sections 10 to 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act. He further contended that it is always open for the Tribunal to direct the first respondent to file additional counter so as to hear the matter on merits. He has drawn the attention of this Court by relying the judgment of the Apex Court in T. SUDHAKAR PRASAD v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1] wherein it was held as under: “While holding the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act the Tribunal remains a Tribunal and so would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 pf the Constitution subject to the well-established rules of self-restraint governing the discretion of the High Court to interfere with the pending proceedings and upset the interim or interlocutory orders of the Tribunals. Learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the Tribunal has rightly exercised its jurisdiction for appearance of the first petitioner and has initiated sue-moto contempt proceedings for is appearance. This contention cannot be accepted inasmuch as the Tribunal ought to have issued sue-moto contempt proceedings In the instant case, we have perused the order passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the charge pertains to the year 1999 and the charge memo was served on the first respondent on 10.02.2004 i.e., after a lapse of five years and even though he submitted his explanation to the same, the petitioners have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings against him till today. He further contended that because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioners have retained the pensionary benefits of the first respondent, which is causing much hardship to his livelihood, and that the Tribunal has granted sufficient time to the petitioners to complete the disciplinary proceedings. A perusal of the material on record shows that in the large scale misappropriation of public money, several persons were involved and some of the charged officers have not filed their written statements, as alleged by the petitioners. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioners to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the first respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order of the Tribunal to the extent that the proceedings should be deemed to have been dropped if the petitioners have not concluded the same within the specified time, is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:29.01.2009 Note: Issue CC within one week. Copy to the Registrar, APAT, Hyderabad. (Bo) sj [1] (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 516