IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9037 of 2009 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Finance (Works and Projects) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Works Accounts, Finance (Works and Projects) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh 1st Floor, M-3, Block, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND K.N. Babu Rao Divisional Accounts Officer Grade-I , Irrigation Division, Eluru, West Godavari 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 will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Admn., Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA No. 7455/2008 dt. 19-9-2008 as being erroneous, illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent : SRI P.KISHORE RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9037 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed assailing the order, dated 19.09.2008, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.7455 of 2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The applicant, who is the respondent herein, was working as Divisional Accounts Officer Grade I. His grievance is that he was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him vide Charge Memo No.33996/428/WA.I/2001 dated 21.01.2002. He sought a direction to the respondents therein to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer without reference to the said disciplinary proceedings. 4. The charges levelled against the respondent are lack of supervision in discharging his duties during the year 2000, on account of which, substantial loss, amounting to Rs.3,25,427/-, was caused to the exchequer and he along with the Executive Engineer concerned were responsible for the lapses. 5. Basing on the recommendations of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department in the year 2001, charges were framed on 21.01.2002. The first Commissioner of Enquires was appointed on 03.09.2007 and the second Commissioner of Enquires was appointed on 25.04.2008. 6. The Tribunal held that the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings was on the part of the respondents therein. The Tribunal further held that the applicant did not challenge the charge memo, which was liable to be quashed. Without going into the said aspect, the Tribunal allowed the O.A., on 19-09-2008, observing as follows:- “The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer without reference to charge memo issued in proceedings No.33996/428/WA.1/2001, dated 21-01-2002 and as modified and framed vide Memo No.DWA/HYD/Sn.I/1/2005-06/44, dated 26- 04-2006 in the existing vacancy and the said promotions shall be without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings for passing final orders and it is always left open to the respondents to impose punishment in the promoted post. As there is inordinate delay of more than eight years in concluding the disciplinary proceedings from the date of incident, the respondents are directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order or else the disciplinary proceedings should be deemed to have been dropped.” 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed by the respondents in the O.A. 8. The petitioners now contend that it is a case of misappropriation of funds by the respondent herein in collusion with the Executive Engineer causing huge loss to the State and as merely there was some delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings, there was no justification in passing the impugned order, fixing three months time for completing the enquiry, with a default clause of dropping the disciplinary proceedings in case the enquiry is not completed within three months period and also directing to consider the promotion meanwhile. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that the period of three months granted is totally inadequate in a case of this nature where enquiry has to be conducted against another officer also. 10. After hearing both sides, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal with regard to fixation of time is not totally unjustified, as such kind of enquiry cannot be completed within such short time. . 11. Considering the circumstances, we direct that the enquiry be completed within two more months from the date of communication of this order and on failure to complete the same within the time stipulated supra, the enquiry proceedings shall be closed as directed by the Tribunal. As far as the aspect of promotion is concerned, as the petitioners herein are directed to complete the enquiry within two months, the same shall be considered only after the enquiry proceedings are completed. If the petitioners desire enquiry against the respondent, it can be separated from the enquiry that is to be conducted against the then Executive Engineer or any other officer. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J Date: 30-07-2009 _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Note: Registry is directed to Communicate copy of this order to the respondents forthwith. (B/o) KL/Prv