THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.1214 of 2011 ORDER(Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the legality and validity of the order, dated 07.09.2010, passed in O.A.No.4109 of 2010, by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners issued charge memos, dated 30.01.2002, 19.01.2002, 23.09.2002, 02.05.2003, 28.04.2003 and 28.01.2005 to the first respondent, who retired as Assistant Director of Town Planning on 31.08.2004, on attaining the age of superannuation, pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings and he is being paid provisional pension at Rs.5,000/-per month. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioners in not finalizing the disciplinary proceedings, the first respondent filed the above said O.A. before the Tribunal seeking to quash the said charge memos against him and to direct the petitioners to release all his pensionary benefits. By the order impugned, the Tribunal allowed the same directing the petitioners to complete the departmental enquiries pending against the first respondent, within three months from the date of receipt of the said order, failing which, all the departmental proceedings pending against the first respondent are deemed to have been dropped and he shall be paid full pension and retiral benefits with interest @ 8% per annum from that date till date of payment. But, interest on gratuity shall be as prescribed under the relevant rules. The petitioners are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards costs of the O.A. to the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. 4. Learned Government Pleader submitted that out of six charge memos issued against the first respondent, the charges framed in two charges memos were held proved and one of the charge memos was dropped. He further submitted that in compliance of the interim direction of the Tribunal in O.A.No.3510 of 2010, the Government sanctioned encashment of earned leave to the first respondent along with others pending finalization of the departmental proceedings vide letter No.25.08.2010. He contended that the Tribunal ought not to have held that in case the departmental proceedings pending against the first respondent are not completed within time, they are deemed to have been dropped. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD v. B. BHADRU[1] wherein it was held as under: “For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed a serious jurisdictional error and exceeded its limits in passing the impugned orders. Consequently, the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that if for any reason the respondents are not able to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by passing final orders within the time frame fixed by it, the said proceedings are deemed to have been closed and quashed, is hereby quashed. In the circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to grant two months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the charge memos referred to supra. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Before parting with the cases, we express our displeasure as to the manner and method in which the disciplinary proceedings are being conducted. The authorities concerned are not adhering to the circular instructions issued by the Government in this regard. The learned Government Pleader also agreed that there was inordinate delay in the cases on hand although for different reasons and informed this Court that he would advise the authorities concerned to follow the relevant circular instructions scrupulously and see that such delays do not recur in future. Needless to state, such delays keep the disciplinary proceedings hanging over the head of the concerned employee indefinitely causing him untold mental agony. All the more so, if he/she is ultimately held not guilty. Inevitably, this would have a demoralizing effect on the workforce. We hope and trust that this would awaken the authorities concerned from their slumber in dealing with disciplinary proceedings and inspire them to act in strict accordance with the circular instructions issued by the Government”. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent contended that though the alleged misconduct relates to 1996- 1997 and the charge memos were issued in 2002, 2003 and 2005, no Enquiry Officer is appointed. He also contended that as the first respondent underwent surgeries, the provisional pension is not sufficient to him. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and following the judgment of this Court cited 1 supra, we are of the view that the time granted by the Tribunal to complete the departmental enquiries against the first respondent is extended from three months to six months from today. In case the first respondent does not cooperate with the enquiry, the petitioners are at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The order of imposing costs of Rs.3,000/-, which was directed to be paid by the petitioners to the first respondent by the Tribunal, is set aside. Except this, in all other aspects, the order impugned stands as it is. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:31.01.2011 sj [1] 2010(3) ALD 477 (DB)