IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 2478 of 2008 Between: 1 The Govt.of A.P rep.by its Secretary to Govt Panchayat Raj&Rural Development Secretariat, A.P,Hyd 2 The/Engineer-in Chief,Panchayat Raj Engineeering Dept,A.P Hyd 3 The Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj Penukonda,Anantapur Dist .....PETITIONERS AND T.Murali Mohar Surperintending Engineer(Retd) From Panchayat Raj Dept R/o.16-620-4/2, Seshappathaota,Madanapally, Chittoor Dist .....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 Tribunal,Hyd passed in O.A.No.2707/2004 dt.16-04-2007 as being erroneous illegal and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: MR.P.LAKSHMANA RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR W.P. No. 2478 of 2008 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 16.4.2007 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2707 of 2004. The respondent herein filed the said O.A. before the Tribunal challenging the Charge Memo No. 176/VS-I/A3/2001 dated 27.6.2003 issued against him as illegal and arbitrary. The main ground of attack by the applicant – respondent herein was that there was inordinate delay in framing charges and therefore they are liable to be quashed. The Tribunal noticed the fact that there is delay of about nine years in framing charges, but, however, as the charges relate to financial transactions and misappropriation, it directed the respondents – petitioners herein to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the stipulated time. The Tribunal further observed that if the petitioners herein are not able to complete the disciplinary proceedings by passing final orders within three months from the date of receipt of the order, they shall be deemed to have been closed and that the petitioners herein shall release the pensionary benefits forthwith thereafter. The grievance of the petitioners is against the direction of the Tribunal to complete the disciplinary proceedings within three months and the deeming clause that if the petitioners could not complete the disciplinary proceedings by passing final orders within three months the same would be deemed to have been closed and that the pensionary benefits shall have to be released forthwith thereafter. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioners and Sri P. Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned Government Pleader contended that the law is well settled that mere delay in initiating proceedings would not vitiate the enquiry unless the delay results in prejudice to the delinquent officer and in this case the charges relate to financial transactions and misappropriation and as such fixing up time limit is not justified. He further submitted that the Commissioner of Inquiries submitted the Enquiry Report on 6.8.2007 pursuant to which show- cause notice was issued to the respondent on 7.12.2007 enclosing the copy of the enquiry officer’s report, calling for the explanation of the respondent and he has also submitted his explanation on 9.1.2008 and the final orders are only to be passed and that the same would be passed very soon. Meanwhile, this Court has granted interim suspension on 13.2.2008 and in view of the interim suspension no final orders could be passed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the procedure followed by the petitioners and contended that there are procedural irregularities with reference to conducting of enquiry and hence the writ petition has to be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that there are procedural irregularities in conducting of enquiry is not the subject matter of the present petition. Taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the enquiry is over and final orders would be passed very soon, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioners to pass final orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. S. ASHOK KUMAR, J. Date: 24-03-2008. MVB.