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 : 25391 of 2008 Between: 1 K.S.P.V. Pavan Kumar Joint Secretary to Government, I & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, I & CAD Department, Secretatiat, Hyderabad. 3 The Engineer-in-Chief, Admainistration Wing I & CAD , Erru Manzil, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 K. Muralidhar, Presently working as Executive Engineer (I/C) K.W. Division, Tenali, Guntur District. 2 The A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Purani Haveli Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar. .....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 A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed in Suo motu Contempt Application No. 648/2008 in O.A NO. 6615/2008 dated 22-09-2008 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.09.2008 passed in Suo motu Contempt Application No.648 of 2008 in O.A.No.6615 of 2008 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent, who is working as Executive Engineer on in-charge basis, filed O.A.No.6615 of 2008 seeking to declare the action of the respondents denying to post him as Superintending Engineer on in-charge basis in spite of his name is being approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee basing on his seniority, eligibility and merit, solely on the ground of contemplated disciplinary proceedings, in which, no charge memo is served on him, as illegal and arbitrary. The first petitioner herein filed a counter therein stating that the terms of G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991 apply only to promotions and appointments by transfer to higher posts and do not apply to in-charge arrangements, which are purely temporary in nature. It is further stated that in the light of the existence of prima facie case against the first respondent for committing multiple irregularities of grave and serious nature and pending issuance of the charges in as many as ten different cases, his name was not considered for the in-charge arrangements, which are purely temporary in nature. 3. In the O.A, the Tribunal after hearing the arguments of both the learned counsel and perusing the material available on record, issued directions to the first petitioner to appear in person on 22.09.2008, on which date, he appeared and reiterated the averments mentioned in the counter-affidavit and stated that the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 30.01.1991 clearly envisage that whenever any person is not served with a charge memo and no charge sheet is filed in a criminal case, he is entitled to be considered for promotion, but the said principle is not being applied for effecting in-charge arrangements. Thereupon, the Tribunal observed that as the first respondent has not been served with a charge memo and no charge sheet has been filed against him in a criminal case, his case cannot be deferred for regular promotion and that the first petitioner has not brought to the notice of the Court that any instructions issued for not considering the case of the first respondent for effecting in-charge arrangements. It further observed that the averments in the counter are misguiding the Tribunal as no charge memo was issued to the first respondent; that the reason for not considering the case of the first respondent is neither stated nor any instructions placed before it and that as per the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991, the case of the first respondent can be considered for promotion, but how he can be denied in-charge arrangements is not explained in the counter. Therefore, the Tribunal suo motu initiated contempt proceedings vide suo motu Contempt Application No.648 of 2008 to the first petitioner to appear in person on 13.10.2008 for explanation and hearing of the contempt case. Aggrieved by the same, the first petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that the Tribunal initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the first petitioner instead of directing him to file additional counter in the O.A. so as to hear the matter on merits. Learned Government Pleader has drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Apex Court reported 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 of 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”. 5. Learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the Tribunal has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in issuing suo motu contempt proceedings against the first petitioner. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the action of the Tribunal without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to file additional counter-affidavit for hearing the matter on merits and initiating suo motu contempt proceedings, vis-a-vis the first petitioner, cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent can be rejected and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 22.09.2008 passed by the Tribunal in Suo motu Contempt Application No.648 of 2008 in O.A.No.6615 of 2008, is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the O.A., expeditiously, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:29.01.2009 sj Note: Copy to the Registrar, APAT, Hyderabad. [1] (2001) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 516