IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26883 of 2006 Between: M.J.Devadas, s/o M.John (late) Central Telegraph Office, Abids, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal General Manager, Telecom District (BSNL) Hyderabad, Suryalok Complex, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-500 001. 2 The Chief General Manager, Telecom (BSNL), Andhra Pradesh Circle, Door Sanchar Bhavan, Nampalli Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad-500 001. 3 Shri K.Eswara Rao, Divisionala Engineer (Extl.) Charminar & Inquiry Officer, o/o General Manager (South) Hyderabad Telecom District (BSNL), Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue order or orders, direction or directions, writ or writs more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the 1st respondent in simultaneously holding the Departmental inquiry vide Memo No.SD-2046/DISC/MJD/2004/18 dated 17-8-2004 and consequential order vide No.SD-2046/R-14/MJD/05 dated 17-11- 2006 and continuing further proceedings on the same set of charges as made out in C.C.No.24 of 2004 on the ﬁle of Hon'ble Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner in terms of injury to his defense in the criminal case and violative of Article 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same as illegal and to pass such other orders as are necessary in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.A.RAGHU KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.(SC FOR B.S.N.L) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26883 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: Petitioner ﬁled this writ petition complaining that during the pendency of criminal proceedings, it may not be desirable to proceed with disciplinary proceedings. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 5.1.2007, granted interim stay of enquiry in the departmental proceedings, pending further orders. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Now it is represented that criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner ended in acquittal. Therefore, there is no hurdle in the way of respondents to proceed with departmental proceedings. In view of the same, no cause survives in the writ petition for further adjudication and it has become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous giving liberty to the respondents to proceed with departmental enquiry, as per law. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 13.10.2008 DA THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26883 of 2006 13.10.2008