THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 29027 OF 2009 Date of disposal: 19.1.2010 Between: K. Balaramakrishna …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 29027 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) 1. The petitioner is the applicant before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) in OA No. 11241 of 2009. The said OA was filed by the petitioner to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his entitlement for promotion as Assistant Excise Superintendent as per seniority and merit on the ground that he was visited with punishment of postponement of one increment vide order in RC No. 74/2008A1-II, dated 16.1.2009 of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Visakhapatnam, even though the same was suspended by the Tribunal on 29.1.2009 in OA No. 726 of 2009, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to hold that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as Assistant Excise Superintendent as per his seniority and suitability in the existing vacancies without reference to the order of punishment, with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal, while admitting the OA, issued notice returnable in four weeks and further held that no interim orders can be passed at the admission stage vide order dated 22.10.2009. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. 2. According to the petitioner, the excise officials conducted surprise raids on IML shops on 22.12.2007 in Visakhapatnam-III and detected violation of MRP by the licensees of IML shops. In that connection, a case in Cr.No. 14 of 2007-08 was registered against M/s. Varalaxmi Wines, Visakhapatnam as the licensee had violated the MRP by selling Director Special, 180 ml at Rs.58-00 as against MRP of Rs.47-00. A charge was framed against the petitioner for his carelessness and negligence in performing his duties and for his failure to control MRP violations by IML licensees. Pursuant to the said charge, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Visakhapatnam, who after obtaining the explanation from the petitioner, imposed punishment of postponement of increment for one year without effect on future increments/pension, under the instructions of Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not possible for the Excise Enforcing Authorities to see that the licensees of IML shops are not committing any offence or violate any of the terms and conditions of the licence and it is always open for the Excise Authorities to take appropriate action against the licensees for violation of any terms and conditions of the IML licence, but for such violation, the excise officer cannot be made liable for disciplinary action. He submits that it is not the case of the Excise department that the petitioner had permitted the licensee to sell the IML at higher price in violation of the MRP. The learned counsel further submits that the disciplinary authority has not independently conducted any enquiry, but imposed the punishment against the petitioner by merely following the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, AP, Hyderabad vide Cr.No. 1353/2007/DOE/A1-III, dated 12.7.2008 and therefore the order of punishment was questioned by the petitioner before the Tribunal in OA No. 726 of 2009 and the Tribunal, by order dated 29.1.2009, suspended the said punishment order and thus the order of punishment is not subsisting and it has no effect on the petitioner for claiming the promotion. 4. It is stated that the DPC meeting was held on 15.10.2009 to consider the cases of promotions from the post of Excise Inspector to the post of Assistant Excise Superintendent and the case of the petitioner was also placed before the DPC, but he was not considered on the ground that he was visited with the punishment of postponement of one increment without cumulative effect. It is stated that he is a senior among the persons whose cases came up for consideration before the DPC, but he was not considered on the ground that he was visited the punishment. 5. We have perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not rejected the request of the petitioner for an interim relief for a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Excise Superintendent as per his seniority and eligibility without reference to order of punishment. The Tribunal merely observed that no interim orders can be passed at the admission stage. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has rejected the interim relief sought for by the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that counter has not yet been filed and they will file the counter within three weeks from today in OA Nos. 11241 and 726 of 2009. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper for the Tribunal to hear both the OAs. together, as the promotion of the petitioner would depend upon the result of OA No. 726 of 2009. Accordingly we request the Tribunal to hear both the OAs. i.e., OA Nos. 11241 and 726 of 2009 together and dispose of the same on priority basis, in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks from today. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt.19.01.2010 NB: Copy of order be furnished within three days. /BO/ KR