IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 2725 of 2009 Between: A.Ramulu S/o.Late A.Papaiah O/o. Director of Enforcement, Prohibition & Excise Nampally, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra PRadesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, REvenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner , Prohibition & ExicseGovernment of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Nampally, Hyderabad .....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 to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring order dated 3.2.2009 passed in OA.No.942 of 2009 on the file of the Hon`ble AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, and consequentially direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings initiated in G.O.Rt.No.444 Revenue (Vigilance,.V) Department dated 11.2.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard both the counsel. The petitioner has joined as Prohibition and Excise Inspector and earned promotion as Assistant Excise Superintendent and Prohibition and Excise Superintendent. The petitioner is working as Prohibition and Excise Superintendent from August, 2006 onwards. It is stated that the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. It is also stated that the petitioner belongs to S.C. community and there is reservation for the SC and ST candidates to the promotion post of Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise. While so, based on the news item appeared in TV5 channel, a charge sheet was issued by the first respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.444, Revenue (Vigilance.V) Department, dated 11.2.2008. For the four charges framed against him, the petitioner filed explanation on 5.3.2008. Enquiry officer was appointed on 13.6.2008. It is stated that statement was also given on 24.11.2008, but the enquiry officer has not completed the enquiry even though the disciplinary proceedings are required to be completed within six months. In view of the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner was not being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A.No.942 of 2009 on the file of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that as per instructions in G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.6.1999, the outer limit for considering the claim of the Government servants who are under the pains of disciplinary proceedings is two years. In the instant case, the charge memo was issued in the month of February, 2008 and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A.No.942 of 2009, by order dated 3.2.2009, directing the respondents to conduct and conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order. Questioning the same, this writ petition has been filed seeking writ of mandamus to declare the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.942 of 209, dated 3.2.2009, as illegal and arbitrary. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that admittedly the enquiry proceedings are pending against the petitioner. It is stated that for getting promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, one has to complete a minimum qualifying service of three years in the cadre of Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, whereas the petitioner got promotion on 31.12.2005, though he has not completed the minimum qualifying service three years of service by 1.9.2008 i.e., the qualifying date for the panel year 2008-2009, but, however, it is decided to invoke Rule 10(a) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 in favour of the petitioner by exempting the said Rule for his promotion to the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise since he has not completed the minimum qualifying service in the category of Prohibition and Excise Superintendent and, accordingly, issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.335, Revenue (Excise-I) Department, dated 24.2.2009. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner is included in the seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Superintendents and is placed at Sl.No.28 before the Departmental Promotion Committee for his promotion to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in the present panel year and the matter is placed before the ensuing Departmental Promotion Committee for preparation of the panel of Prohibition and Excise Superintendents fit for promotion to the category of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise during the panel year i.e., 2008-2009 for their recommendation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the candidature of the petitioner is not being considered by the Committee only due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal passed the impugned order to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months and the said order does not warrant any interference of this Court. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for non- compliance of the said order. We do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise in the said order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ S.ASHOK KUMAR, J. 01.06.2009 kpr