IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26767 of 1999 Between: C.Sambasiva Raju S/o.Subba Raju Panchayat Raj Department R/o.Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Govt. of A.P Rep.by its Secretary,Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Secretariat Hyderabad. .....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 To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to promote the petitioner notionally as Superintending Engineer from the 1979 year D.P.C. panel by setting aside the common order of A.P.A.T. in O.A.Nos.72133/90, 81006/90, 3160/92 and consequently direct the respondent to grant all consequential beneﬁts to the petitioner on the basis of national promotion as superintending Engineer in D.P.C. Panel 1979 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.26767 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled by the applicant in O.A.Nos.72133 of 1990; 81006 of 1990 and 3160 of 1992 against the common order dated 22-2-1999 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The petitioner sought further direction to the respondent to promote him notionally as Superintending Engineer from the panel of D.P.C. constituted in 1979 and grant all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner herein had ﬁled the above OAs and Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, has disposed of O.As by passing common order and the relevant portion reads as under: “ …it is seen that the applicant was facing certain disciplinary proceedings in the year 1979 when his case came up for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The applicant was compulsorily retired from service in September, 1982 which he challenged in R.P.1410/83. The Tribunal allowed the said R.P. with a direction to the respondents to take back the applicant to duty and he was accordingly taken to duty. The disciplinary proceedings which the applicant was facing were ﬁnalised in 1990 and the applicant was given the promotion as Superintending Engineer vide G.O.Ms.No.645 dt. 17-12-91, after the period of punishment was over. Accordingly, the applicant was given promotion when he became eligible for it after the disciplinary proceedings were concluded. The applicant’s case for promotion in earlier panels could not be considered as he was facing disciplinary proceedings and he suﬀered more than one punishment at the time the DPC was considering cases for promotion. As the applicant has since been promoted with eﬀect from the date the disciplinary proceedings were ﬁnalised and the period of punishment was over, the applicant is not eligible for promotion prior to the date he was actually promoted.” 3. A perusal of the above ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal shows that the case of the petitioner was considered and he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in the year 1991. However, since the petitioner was facing disciplinary proceedings in the year 1979, which were ultimately ﬁnalised in 1990, his case for promotion could not be considered. The Tribunal further recorded the ﬁnding that the petitioner was given the promotion as Superintending Engineer vide G.O.Ms.No.645 dated 17-12-1991 after the period of punishment was over. In the circumstances, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted and we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. 4. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 24-07-2008 bsc