IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22707 of 2006 Between: 1 Government of A.P., rep by Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Municipal Corportion of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Director, Town & Country Planning Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Sri K.S.K. Chakravarthy Retired Dy. City Planner, R.i 12-11-1371, Rachavendranagar, Secunderabad. .....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 or direction more particularly one inthe nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 30-8-2005 in O.A. No. 4501 of 2003 on the file ofthe Hon'ble APAT Hyderabad and to quash or set a side the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and pass such other order ororders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and properinthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22707 OF 2006 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30-8-2005 passed in O.A.NO.4501 of 2003 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The facts stated are that the Vigilance and Enforcement Department has enquired into the construction of commercial complex at Door No.8-2-672, Road No.1, Banjarahills, near Taj Residency Hotel, Hyderabad on 25-6-1998, and enquiry revealed that the owner/builder made several deviations in the construction of commercial Complex. Based on the enquiry report, the Government initiated disciplinary proceedings against six employees of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad including the respondent herein. After examination of the written statement of defence of the respondent herein, the Government appointed Inquiry Authority on 15-7-2003, to inquire into the charges framed against the respondent and other officers. The inquiry authority has submitted the report on 9-9-2005 holding that the charges framed against the respondent were not proved. After examining the inquiry report, the Government, however, communicated the inquiry report along with its disagreement factors to the findings of the inquiry officer, to the respondent for his explanation vide proceedings dated 6-5-2006. It is represented that pending the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent herein approached the Tribunal, in O.A.Nos.4501 and 4506 of 2003, challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him vide G.O.Rt.No.570, M.A & U.D (E1) Department, dated 28-4- 2003, and G.O.Rt.No.583, M.A. Department, Dated 29-4- 2003, respectively. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by its common order dated 30- 8-2005 in O.A.No.4501 of 2004 and 4506 of 2003 directed the Government to finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent herein, within a period of three months with effect from 30-8-2005. It was also made clear by the Tribunal that in case, the 1st respondent- Government fails to finalise the disciplinary proceedings within the stipulated period, further action in pursuance of the above G.Os. shall stand abated. This Writ Petition has been filed by the authorities challenging the order dated 30-8-2005 insofar as O.A.No.4501 of 2004 is concerned. Heard the learned counsel on either side. It is seen from the record that the Inquiry Officer completed enquiry on 9-9-2005 holding that the charges levelled against the respondent herein were not proved. In spite of the positive direction of the Tribunal to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of its order in O.A.NO.4501 of 2003 dated 13-8- 2005, the disciplinary authority after a period of six months communicated the Inquiry Officer’s report to the respondent, disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on all the charges vide memo dated 6-5-2006. Subsequently, on 28-10-2006, the present writ petition has been filed by the authorities and obtained interim suspension of the order passed by the Tribunal on 13-12- 2006. Though the Tribunal by order dated 30-8-2005 made it clear that the authorities must finalise and conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months, else disciplinary proceedings stands abated, this writ petition has been filed on 28-10-2006 i.e. after abatement of the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal referred above. Considering the fact that the charges relate to the year 1995-96, and that after matter has been abated even by the time the present writ petition was filed, we see no ground to entertain the writ petition, warranting interference of the order passed by the Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore, meritless and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ C.V. Ramulu, J Dated: 30TH June, 2008 KK/.