THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1960 OF 2010 ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed): This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not giving effect to G.O.Ms.No.394 MA & UD (L2) Department dated 02.06.2008 and the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 20.10.2009 in O.A.No.11077 of 2008 with V.M.A.No.298 of 2009 and C.A.No.153 of 2009 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to give effect to G.O.Ms.No.394 dated 02.06.2008. 2. The petitioner worked as Manager in the Office of Alwal Municipality of Ranga Reddy District and while working as such he was placed under suspension on the allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation of funds of Alwal Municipality. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and after conducting enquiry, he was imposed with a punishment of 100% cut in pension and gratuity vide G.O.Ms.No.230 dated 07.04.2007. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Tribunal in O.A.No.2752 of 2007 and pending the O.A., the said punishment has been revised to that of 10% cut in pension for a period of two years vide G.O.Ms.No.394, MA & UD (L2) Department, dated 02.06.2008 and the O.A was withdrawn by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of issuing G.O.Ms.No.394 dated 02.06.2008, the respondents are not releasing the remaining pension of 90% and gratuity and therefore, he filed the present O.A i.e. O.A.No.11077 of 2008. 3. The respondents filed a counter before the Tribunal, wherein it is stated that since two other disciplinary proceedings are also pending against the petitioner, therefore only provisional pension is being paid and that in view of pendency of two other disciplinary proceedings, full pension and other pensionary benefits cannot be released till finalisation of those disciplinary proceedings as per Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 4. During the pendency of the O.A., the Tribunal, by an order dated 31.12.2008, issued an interim relief directing the respondents to release the pensionary benefits pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.394 dated 02.06.2008 forthwith. Since the respondents did not comply with the said direction, the petitioner filed C.A.No.153 of 2009 and the respondents filed VMA No.298 of 2009 for vacation of the interim order. 5. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material available before it, taken up the O.A, VMA and C.A together for consideration and dismissed the O.A, allowed the VMA and closed the C.A holding that as another two disciplinary proceedings are also pending against the petitioner, the relief claimed by him cannot be granted in view of Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 7. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A for the reasons given by it. Since two other disciplinary proceedings in connection with purchase of stationery and sanitary material articles at excess rates and withdrawal of advances for various purposes in the capacity of Manager in Alwal Municipality and failing to settle the advance by submitting relevant vouchers and bills are pending against the petitioner, the pensionary benefits pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.394 dated 02.06.2008 cannot be released till finalisation of the said two disciplinary proceedings. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that one of the above said two disciplinary proceedings in respect of the charges relating to G.O.Rt.No.836 dated 24.06.2006 was concluded and the petitioner was imposed with punishment of withholding of full pension permanently, gratuity and other retiremental benefits vide G.O.Ms.No.656 MA & UD dated 11.11.2009. As long as G.O.Ms.No.656 dated 11.11.2009 is not challenged by the petitioner, he cannot claim release of the pension as per G.O.Ms.No.394 dated 02.06.2008. 8. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, this order does not come in the way of the petitioner if he challenges G.O.Ms.No.656 dated 11.11.2009 and succeeds in those proceedings. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J Dated 16th February, 2010​ ______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J vrn