IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN 15.02.2010 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 24306 of 2009 Between: The Special Chief Secretary to Government of A.P, Revenue (Services-I) Department, Secretariat Buildings, A.P.Hyderabad. and one another ..... PETITIONER AND 1 N. Raghunath Rao, S/o N. Ramalinga Rao, Special Deputy Collector, GHMC, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No. 10580 of 2008 with VMA No. 578 of 2009. O.A.No. 10580 of 2008 was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Special Grade Deputy Collector without reference to the disciplinary proceedings vide charge memo bearing G.O.Rt.No. 442, Revenue (Vig.III) Department dated 1.3.2006, issued by the first respondent with regard to the allegations pertain to the year 1991 and promote him as such with all consequential benefits. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as M.R.O. Dharur (Mandal), Ranga Reddy District, issued succession orders under Section 40 of A.P. (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1950 in favour of Sri M. Yellaiah and 8 others vide proceedings dated 16.3.1991, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. While so, it is stated that after lapse of more than 15 years, the first respondent has issued a charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.442, Revenue (Vig.III) Department, dated 1.3.2006, with regard to the allegations pertains to the year 1991, with the following charges: “Article of Charge No. 1: Sri N. Raghunadha Rao, while working as Mandal Revenue Officer, Dharur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, issued the succession proceedings in favour of Sri M. Yellaiah and others in respect of the above said Sy.Nos. without following the proper procedure. At the point of issuing orders of succession, the Mandal Revenue Officer, ought to have taken care to observe that these were ceiling surplus lands and they were made Kharij Khata. Therefore, the question of succession does not arise. Subsequently the successors of the P.T. who got succession under section 40 of the Act have filed WP before the Hon’ ble High Court. Finally the Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents i.e., Government to follow the procedure and take steps in pursuance of the provisions of the L.A. Act, including the award in accordance with law vide W.P.No. 5449 of 2000 dated 6.3.2003. This legal complication arisen due to the alleged succession order under Section 40 of Tenancy Act passed by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Sri Raghunadha Rao only, which leads to serious effect on the State ex- chequer for payment of compensation under L.A Act for the lands already taken as Ceiling Surplus lands under provisions of A.P LA (COAH) Act, 1973 and made Khajit Khata to Government. Article of Charge –2: Sri N. Raghunadha Rao, Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad while working as Mandal Revenue Officer, Dharur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District did not follow the procedure of issuing notices to the Original Pattadar and issued Certificate in favour of Sri M. Yellaiah dated 16.3.1991 declaring the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No. 5449 of 2000 as the original protected Tenants. The minimum requirement issue of notices to the original owner or his successor should have been followed before issue of Succession Certificate. In the instant case no such notice is issued which clearly establishes and indicates that the said certificate was managed from the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer and he issued succession certificate with malafide intention.” In response to the said charge memo, the applicant has submitted his detailed explanation dated 14.6.2006 denying the charges. But so far the disciplinary enquiry has not yet been concluded, though the Government has issued circular dated 1.7.1998 fixing the time schedule for completion of disciplinary enquiries. It is further submitted that though the applicant is fully eligible and qualified and he is within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Special Grade Deputy Collector, his case was not considered for promotion on the sole ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings vide charge memo dated 1.3.2006 with regard to the allegations pertain to the year 1991. The Tribunal while admitting O.A, granted interim relief, which reads as under; “Pending disposal, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Special Grade Deputy Collector without reference to the disciplinary proceedings issued vide charge Memo bearing G.O.Rt No. 442, Revenue dated 1.3.2006, if he is otherwise qualified, eligible and in accordance with Rules.” Respondents therein filed VMA No. 578 of 2009 on 24.4.2009 seeking vacation of the interim orders and also filed counter opposing the application by contending that the applicant was included in the panel year 2008-2009 for promotion to the post of Special Grade Deputy Collector. But the Screening Committee has not considered the name of the applicant as his ACRs, were not made available before the Committee and as the disciplinary case was pending against the applicant as he issued succession certificate without verifying the records and the successors of the protected tenant filed Writ Petition No. 5449 of 2000 before this Court and this Court disposed of the same on 6.3.2003 directing the Government to follow the procedure and take steps in pursuance of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Tribunal while making the interim orders made absolute directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion as Special Grade Deputy Collector without taking into consideration the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Charge Memo bearing GO. Rt.No. 442, dated 1.3.2006 if he is in the zone of consideration and otherwise eligible and accordingly dismissed the VMA. Hence, the present Writ Petition. The learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that when once the employee is placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings, and no charge memo is issued, the case has to be considered for promotion. He also submitted that here in this particular case when a charge memo is issued in pursuance of the observations made by this court in WA MP No. 3108 of 2003 in W.A.No. 1772 of 2003, the department has moved in the matter and issued charge memo framing charges on 1.3.2006. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer was appointed and conducted enquiry under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and submitted the enquiry report holding that the first charge framed against the applicant is partly proved. Now under the CCCA Rules the report of the Enquiry Officer has to be furnished to the delinquent Officer so as to offer his explanation under Rule 21(4) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, vide Govt. Memo No. 7025/Vig, III (2)/2006-7 dated 5.10.2009 and the explanation of the respondent-applicant is awaited. At that time the respondent-applicant approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in directing the Government to consider his case for promotion to the higher post without noticing the fact that the charge memo was issued. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. We have noticed that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after a lapse of 15 years of the alleged misconduct. The charge memo was issued to the delinquent employee pursuant to the observations made by this Court in W.A.No. 1772 of 2003 and when once the first charge was held partly proved by the Enquiry Officer by submitting his report and the necessary required procedure has to be followed by seeking an explanation from the delinquent officer so as to give him an adequate opportunity before imposing the necessary punishment. At that stage, the delinquent officer-respondent herein approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the applicant for promotion as Special Grade Deputy Collector without taking into consideration the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Charge Memo bearing G.O.Rt.No. 442 dated 1.3.2006, if he is in the zone of consideration and is otherwise eligible. In our considered view the direction given by the Tribunal is impermissible inasmuch as the Tribunal has committed a serious error in ignoring the fact that already a charge memo was issued to the delinquent employee and there is no actual delay in issuing the charge memo and the enquiry officer has already submitted his report on 11.9.2009 holding that Charge No. 1 is partly proved. In the circumstances, the decision rendered by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 10580 of 2008 with VMANo. 578 of 2009 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ SANJAY KUMAR , J Dt. 15.02.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2 CDS