THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.30374 of 2010 Date: 15.03.2011 Between: The Govt. of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Revenue (Vig.I) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others .. Petitioners AND L. Ananda Rao and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.30374 of 2010 ORDER (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed): The writ petition is filed seeking to issue an order, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 13.08.2010 passed in O.A.No.5411 of 2010 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The first respondent, who is the applicant in O.A.No.5411 of 2010, joined the service as Attender in the year 1975 and promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 1986 and he was posted at Integrated Check Post of Purushothamapuram, Itchapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District from 01.09.2007 to 30.11.2007. A surprise check was conducted by the A.C.B. authorities on 24.11.2007 on which the applicant was on leave, and they found that the applicant was absent from the check post. Later, on the basis of report of ACB authorities, a Charge Memo was issued to him on 22.12.2008 alleging that he was absent from duty on 24.11.2007 and failed to maintain absolute integrity. He submitted his explanation to the charge memo. Thereafter, there is no progress in the enquiry and he is not being considered for posting on par with other junior assistants because of pendency of the enquiry proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed O.A.No.5411 of 2010 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. After considering the matter in detail, the Tribunal allowed the said OA, through order dated 13.08.2010 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for giving posting on par with other junior assistants. Aggrieved by the same, the Government filed the present writ petition. 3. While admitting the writ petition, on 22.12.2010 this Court passed the following interim order in WPMP No.38685 of 2010: “There shall be interim suspension for a period of two months. However, this order does not preclude the petitioners-authorities from completing enquiry immediately since though charge memo was framed and charge sheet was also issued in the year 2003, but there is no progress in the enquiry. In the circumstances, we also deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners-authorities to complete the enquiry within a period of two months from today. Office to post the writ petition after two months.” 4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 5. On instructions, the Government Pleader for Services-II submitted that the enquiry has already been completed and in the enquiry, it is found that the first respondent-applicant was not guilty of the charge levelled against him. He further submitted that the enquiry report is likely to be submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority. 6. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that in similar circumstances O.A.No.828 of 2010 was allowed by the Tribunal on 06.02.2010 directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicants therein for giving posting orders on par with other Commercial Tax Officers. In that case, both the applicants, who were working as Commercial Tax Officers, were posted in non-focal posts and their cases were not considered for posting on par with other Commercial Tax Officers, as the cases of disproportionate assets were registered against them. In those circumstances, the Tribunal considering the G.O.Ms.No. 143, dated 21.06.2007 and also other circumstances, allowed that O.A., and directed the respondents to consider giving the postings to those applicants on par with others. 7. Be that as it may, since it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Services-II that the enquiry initiated against the first respondent has already been completed and in the enquiry he is found not guilty of the charges levelled against him, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions. 8. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the Enquiry Report and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the first respondent-applicant, expeditiously. In the meanwhile, the petitioners-authorities are also directed to give appropriate posting orders to the first respondent- applicant as expeditiously as possible. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ________________ K.G. Shankar, J Date: 15.03.2011 Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/o.) Isn