IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 19339 of 2008 Between: M.Z. Basith Siddiqui, S/o. M.M. Siddique, O/o. the Sub-Registrar Office, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1-7-10, N.B.K. Complex, Near Golkonda X Roads, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad Ranga, Government of A.P. 6th Floor, Chandra Vihar, Moazzam Jahi Market, 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to and connected with orders of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 19-8-2008 rendered in OA No. 6688 of 2008 and Memo No. G1/1808/1994, dated 23-7-2008 of the 2nd respondent and quash or set aside the same holding the continuation of disciplinary proceedings as being arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and to grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NAVEEN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 19-08-2008 passed in O.A.No.6688 of 2008 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the memo No.G1/1808/1994 dated 23-07-2008 issued by the second respondent. The petitioner, who is working as Sub-Registrar, Bhongir, Nalgonda District, was issued with a charge memo dated 22-08-1994 regarding shortage of stamps. After completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, dated 20-07-2001 and thereafter, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 28-07-2001 to the petitioner, who in turn, gave explanation dated 30-10-2001, but no final orders have been passed thereon. During interregnum, the petitioner filed O.A.Nos.829 of 1998 and 677 of 1999 on the ground of denial of reasonable opportunity in the enquiry, non-conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and continuous suspension from service and the same were disposed of on 25-02-1999 directing the respondents to supply relevant documents to the petitioner within one month and complete the enquiry within three months thereafter, failing which, reinstate him into service. As the Disciplinary Authority could not conclude the proceedings within the time stipulated by the Tribunal, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked and accordingly, he joined duty on 04.09.1999. While so, after a lapse of 14 years from the date of issuance of charge memo dated 22-08-1994, with regard to the same incident, another memo dated 23-07-2008 was issued to the petitioner directing him to submit his representation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said memo. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6688 of 2008 and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal on 19-08-2008 directing him to submit his representation to the memo dated 23-07-2008 within two weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The respondents filed counter-affidavit stating that the records concerned were seized by the Inspector of Police, Marredpally Police Station for enquiry in another case involved by the petitioner and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings could not be completed within the time stipulated by the Tribunal. It is further stated that the petitioner without submitting his explanation to the memo dated 23.07.2008, as directed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6688 of 2008, filed the present writ petition. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even after a long lapse of 14 years from the date of the charge memo, the disciplinary proceedings have not been completed till today. He further contended that once the Tribunal directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within a period of three months and the same was extended, they have not passed any final orders or initiated denovo enquiry. He also contended that in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner and also the direction of the Tribunal, the respondents have not supplied the important and relevant documents to him. Therefore, he prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that as the entire record was held up in the police department for enquiry in another case, the delay in passing the final orders has been occurred. A perusal of the material on record shows that before passing final orders, the respondents issued a memo dated 23.07.2008 to the petitioner to submit his representation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said memo. The Tribunal, without interfering with the process of issuance of final orders, directed the petitioner to submit his representation to the said memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of the said order and that the respondents, within a period of six weeks after submission of the representation by the petitioner, shall pass final orders, failing which, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner shall be deemed to have been closed and if the respondents pass final orders within the time stipulated above, it is always open to him to question the said orders before appropriate forum. Admittedly, the charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 22-08-1994 and the second memo was issued to him on 23-07-2008, i.e., after a long lapse of 14 years. Even after the direction of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.829 of 1998 and 677 of 1999 dated 25-02-1999 to supply the relevant documents within one month to the petitioner and to complete the enquiry within three months thereafter and even though the time was extended to complete the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents have not passed any final orders, which cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the enquiry was delayed for a long time on the ground that relevant records were held up in the police department for enquiry in another case, cannot be accepted because it shows the deficiency on the part of the respondents in concluding the enquiry on several occasions. That apart, because of non-supply of important and relevant documents to the petitioner, he cannot be deprived of an opportunity of being heard and that the inordinate delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and non-supply of the relevant documents to the petitioner are fatal to the entire disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 19-08-2008 in O.A.No.6688 of 2008 on the file of the Tribunal and the memo dated 23-07-2008 issued by the second respondent are quashed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:21.01.2009 sj