IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 6651 of 2009 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Special Chief Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Department, Govt. of AP Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND M.K. Chaturvedi working as Dy. Chief Executive Officer, and I/c Accounts Officer, Z.P.P., Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed OA No. 10468 of 2008 dated 30-12-2008 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.6651 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.10468 of 2008 whereunder and whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into service. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is working as Deputy Chief Executive Officer. A preliminary enquiry was conduced against the respondent on the ground of some irregularities and basing on the preliminary enquiry report, the respondent was suspended vide G.O.R.T.No. 1576, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Vig.1(A) Department, dated 15.11.2007. Then the respondent was issued a charge memo dated 27.12.2007 and he submitted his explanation. But the petitioners have not proceeded with the regular enquiry and delaying the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and prolonging the suspension of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed O.A.No.10468 of 2008 challenging the above said G.O.R.T. The case of the respondent in the O.A. was that he also stands on the same footing as that of applicants in O.A.No. 7234 of 2007 and batch wherein the Tribunal directed the petitioners to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by the end of May,2008 and if the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded by passing final orders within the said period, the applicants therein shall be reinstated into service by order dated 04.02.2008. Therefore, the respondent requested to pass similar orders in the O.A. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, disposed of the O.A. with the direction as referred above. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing for the petitioners contended that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were not concluded due to administrative reasons and delay in correspondence and on that ground, the respondent cannot be reinstated into service. 4. We have perused the record. It is evident that in the similar matter in O.A.No.7234 of 2007 and batch, the Tribunal has given specific direction to the petitioners to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by the end of May,2008, and in the event of non conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings by that time, the applicants therein should be reinstated into service. In the instant case also, since the petitioners have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings within the period as stipulated by the Government, the respondent is entitled to be reinstated into service, without prejudice to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 02-04-2009 Stp