IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 487 of 2010 BETWEEN: The Principal Secretary to Government of A.P., Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. ... PETITIONERS AND A. Bhaskjar Rao and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES - II Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR. M. RATNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is directed against the final orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7426 of 2005 dated 10.12.2009. 2. The applicant had sought a relief in the OA that his non-promotion as Executive Engineer either on regular basis or additional charge basis on account of pendency of the disciplinary case is illegal and consequently, a direction was sought against the State to promote the applicant as Executive Engineer without reference to the charge memo dated 17.10.1005 pending against him. Under the impugned order the tribunal had allowed the OA on the ground of inordinate delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings. The said order is questioned by the State in this writ petition. 3. The issue raised above is squarely covered by our judgments rendered in STATE OF A.P. v. A. RAMULU[1] and SPECIAL CHIEF SECY. To GOVT. OF A.P., REV. (SER.I) DEPT v. V.V. KUMAR[2] and WP.No.22714 of 2009 and batch decided today. 4. Mr. Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant, has strenuously contended that under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, sub-rule 5(d) mandates a disciplinary authority to complete enquiry within a time bound period but this is not being adhered to and is followed in breach in almost every case. Learned counsel also tried to convince us by contending that the very charge pending against the applicant is trivial and frivolous, as he was posted in the said place only for a short duration after the occurrence of the event in question. He has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BANI SINGH[3]. 5. On facts, however, it is evident that in that case quashment of adverse entries in ACR’s was sought for and consequential retrospective promotion in selection quota was sought for. The said decision on facts is not applicable to the present case. The other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel have already been referred to and discussed by us while considering W.P.No.22714 of 2009 and batch. This OA, therefore, is covered by the aforesaid batch and is clearly devoid of merits. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 4th , 2010 DSK [1] 2010 (1) ALD 144 (DB) [2] 2010 (1) ALD 746 (DB) [3] AIR 1990 SC 1308