IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13868 of 2008 Between: D. Sudhakar Rao, S/o. D. Suryanarayana, Working at B.R. R. Vamsadhara Project, Main Canal Sub-Division, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Irrgiatin & CAD (Services-VII) (V&E-II) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer-In-Chief (Admn.Wing), I & CAD Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, I & CAD, Irrigation Circle, Bobbili, Vizianagarm District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer due to the Non-finalisation of disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No. 1343 I & CAD (CAD Ser.II) Department, dated 22/11/2003 as arbitrary and illegal and not in consonance with the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Chairman Lal Geol - (1995) 2 SCC 570 and New Bank of India Vs. N.P. Sehgal - AIR 1991 (2) SC 220 and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer without reference to the charge memo issued in G.O.Rt.No. 1343 I & CAD (CAD Ser.II) Department, dated 22/11/2003 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.13868 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer due to non-finalisation of disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Memo dated 22-11-2003, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. There is no necessity of going into the details of the case. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has not taken up and passed orders in interlocutory application and thus failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and that the non- finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings is adversely affecting his promotion. 3. In the circumstances and having regard to the grievance of the petitioner, we are not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. However, in view of the long pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the interlocutory application within a period of three weeks. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II undertakes to file counter in the O.A. before Tribunal within two weeks. If no counter is filed, the Tribunal shall take its own decision basing on the material on record. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 01-07-2008 Note: Furnish copy in two days on usual terms. (b/o) bsc