IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18415 of 2006 Between: 1 The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND P. Yesudasu O/o The RDO., Ongole, Prakasam District .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate 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 Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A. No. 1534 of 2005, dt 05-0-5-2006 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, dated 05.05.2005 passed in O.A. No. 1534 of 2005 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and quash the same as erroneous, illegal and unreasonable the petitioners filed this writ petition. The respondent herein filed the above OA assailing the order D.Dis/B1/2921/2004 dated 18.8.2004 insofar as it relates to the stoppage of increments from 1.10.2003 to 1.10.2005 and also the consequential endorsement dated 18.3.2005 refusing to consider his candidature for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. The applicant while working as Junior Assistant, was kept under suspension by order dated 11.3.1999 issued by the first petitioner herein, on the allegation that he made alterations and corrections in the Incentive Payment Register leading to excessive payments to NSS Agents. An enquiry was conducted into the charges and the Enquiry Officer held the charges have been proved and in culmination of the same, the respondent herein was mulcted with the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect, though the Vigilance Commissioner has suggested the punishment of removal from service. On an appeal by the respondent herein to the Commissioner, Land Administration, the Commissioner has modified the punishment to that of the stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect to that of stoppage of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect. Accordingly, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 1.10.1999 releasing the increments due to the respondent, but the respondent herein challenges the proceedings of the second respondent dated 18.8.2004, whereby his annual grade increments as on 1.10.2003, 1.10.2004 and 1.10.2005 have been stopped till 30.9.2005 and the endorsement of the first respondent dated 18.3.2005 whereby it was observed that the respondent is not eligible for promotion to the higher post during the subsistence of penalty i.e. upto 30.9.2006. Case of the respondents – Department is that the proceedings dated 18.8.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent stopping the annual increments from 1.10.2003, 1.10.2004 and 1.10.2005 till 30.9.2005 is legal and in accordance with the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and that the respondent is not entitled to be considered for the promotion during the period of subsistence of penalty i.e. till 30.9.2006. The Tribunal observed that the respondent was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect, by virtue of the Appellate Authority, which goes to show that the punishment of stoppage of increments had come into effect from 1.10.1999 and the increments were not sanctioned to the respondent till 19.9.2005, by which date the Appellate Authority had passed the order in appeal. Thus the stoppage of three annual grade increments due on 1.10.1999, 1.10.2000 and 1.10.2001 shall have the effect to stoppage of the increments and the respondent is entitled to periodical increment from 1.10.2002 onwards, which means that the penalty imposed by way of punishment comes to an end by 30.9.2002. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the respondent is right in contending that he is eligible to be considered for promotion/ promotion by transfer to a higher post after 1.10.2003 and issued directions to the respondents accordingly. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the respondents in the O.A. inter alia contending that currency of the punishment imposed on the employee should be counted from 1.10.2002 onwards and three years period would expire on 1.10.2005 and the date of increment would fall only on 1.10.2006 and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The respondent herein was suspended from service on 11.3.1999 and reinstated into service on 22.6.1999. Admittedly, he was not granted increments till 18.8.2004, for the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments, without cumulative effect, by virtue of the order of the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the respondent is only entitled to the next increment on 1.10.2006 cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as it is a settled principle of law that the order of the Appellate Authority merges with the order of the Appellate Authority and the punishment imposed on the respondent runs accordingly and it shall be deemed that such punishment came into effect on 1.10.1999. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in passing the impugned order directing the petitioners herein to consider the case of the applicant for promotion. Having gone through the impugned order and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. As a sequal to the dismissal of the writ petition, all the interlocutory applications are closed. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ___________________ S.ASHOK KUMAR, J. March 28, 2008 MAS.