IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 24838 of 2008 Between: Y. Mahalaxmi W/o. Mohan Rao M.P. Kotabommili, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Srikakulam. 2 The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Srikakulam. 3 The Commissioner for Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, A.P. Hyderabad. 4 Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc. Rc No. 677/2008/C4 dt. 21-9- 2008 and the consequential Proc. Rc No. 677/2008/C4 dt. 3-10-2008 issued by the District Collector, Srikakulam in so far as the observations made by the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 8355 of 2008 dt. 4-10-2008 that a regular enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty for misappropriation of Rs. 3,98,865/- and why final orders are not passed and it is not a fit case to suspend the order or suspension dt. 21-9-2008 as illegal, arbitrary unjust and contrary to Rule 20 of A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to for reinstatement to duty as Mandal Parishad Development Officer with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The court made the following order: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.24838 of 2008 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings, dated 21.09.2008, and the consequential proceedings, dated 03.10.2008, issued by the first respondent, the District Collector, Srikakulam, and the observations made by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.8355 of 2008 on 04.10.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to Rule 20 of A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules. The petitioner, who is working as M.P.D.O., M.P.P., Kotabommali of Srikakulam District, challenging the proceedings, dated 21.09.2008, placing him under suspension and the consequential recovery proceedings, dated 03.10.2008, has filed O.A.No.8355 of 2008 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while issuing notice before admission, passed the following order on 04.11.2008. “Heard both sides. Issue notice before admission to the respondents returnable within four weeks. The impugned order shows that regular enquiry was conducted and the applicant was found guilty for misappropriation of Rs.3,98,865/-. I am not able to understand why final orders are not passed. However, it is not a fit case to suspend the order of suspension dated 21.09.2008. As final orders are not passed, it is not just to order recovery at this stage. So, recovery of the amount from the applicant is stayed.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal ought not to have made such observations without adjudicating the issue involved which will have effect on the final decision and therefore, he submits that the said observations are unwarranted. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, the Tribunal ordered notice and stayed recovery proceedings, and while refusing to suspend the order of suspension, it made an observation that the impugned order shows that regular enquiry was conducted and the applicant was found guilty for misappropriation of Rs.3,98,865/-. Be that as it may, the Tribunal has not passed any final orders. In the absence of any final decision and in order to avoid parallel proceedings, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, we deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the O.A., uninfluenced by the observations made by it in its order, dated 04.11.2008. The respondents are also directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the Tribunal in its order, dated 04.11.2008. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage. No costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Dt.13.11.2008 VGB