THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.4492 of 2010 ORDER: (Per GMJ) This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.No.4546 of 2009 in M.A.No.3540 of 2009 in O.A.No.5876 of 2009 to the extent of not setting aside the suspension order of the petitioner and extending time limit for a further period of six months. The petitioner, who belong to ST community, joined in service with the respondents on 01.08.1991 as the District Probation Officer at Vizianagaram as Grade II, promoted as District Probation Officer Grade I on 01.08.2000 and further promoted as Superintendent on 31.07.2003 and on 01.07.2008, he was transferred to Government Children Home for Boys, Eluru. While working at Eluru, he gave a complaint against the then Superintendent – Mr. K. Sadasivan and Supervisor of the Home – Mr.N.L. Srinivasa Rao, stating that they sold old mud in the premises of the Home, but no action was taken against them. According to the petitioner, the said persons bore grudge against the petitioner which lead to a news item dated 31.03.2009 alleging that the petitioner sold teak wood and fell other trees etc. Based on the said news item, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 02.04.2009 by the first respondent. Against said suspension order, the petitioner gave representations to respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 06.04.2009 for revocation of suspension order, in vain. While so, the first respondent vide order dated 22.04.2009 ordered a discrete enquiries against the petitioner, appointing Mr. K. Sadasivan, Deputy Director of Correctional Services, (against whom the petitioner earlier gave complaint) and Mr. P. Sukumaran, Assistant Chief Probation Superintendent, but the request of the petitioner for reinstatement was not acceded to. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A.No.5876 of 2009 seeking to set aside the suspension order dated 02.04.2009 and praying for reinstatement into service. After filing of O.A., the said Sadavasivan and Sukumaran submitted report dated 05.05.2009 to the first respondent with nine allegations. The Tribunal vide order dated 13.05.2009 disposed of the O.A. directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of said order and in default directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service without prejudice to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, the first respondent had issued a charge memo dated 25.05.2009, served on the petitioner on 02.06.2009, framing nine charges, according to the petitioner with false allegations, to which the petitioner submitted representations. The petitioner objected appointment of Mr. Sukumaran as the Enquiry Officer since he being preliminary enquiry officer, which is not permissible, and he also sought for certain documents. The first respondent, neither accepted the said objection nor supplied the documents to the petitioner, however, filed M.A.No.3540 of 2009 in the O.A. seeking extension of time for completion of disciplinary proceedings and to keep the petitioner under suspension till such time. The Tribunal extended time till end of December, 2009. Since the disciplinary proceedings could not be completed by then, the first respondent filed another M.A.No.4546 of 2009 in the O.A. seeking further extension of time. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, the Tribunal vide order dated 31.12.2009 at para 9 ordered as under: “Therefore, the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and rejection order dated 15.11.2009 are set aside by directing the disciplinary authority to appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer who is not a party to the preliminary enquiry and conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If for any reason, the enquiry is not completed, the applicant shall be reinstated after expiry of six months. It is made clear to the authorities that if the applicant does not cooperate, they can proceed ex parte. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondents have not paid any subsistence allowance till date. The respondents shall pay subsistence allowance along with arrears to the applicant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and continue to pay regularly till the applicant is reinstated. Accordingly, M.A. is disposed of.” The petitioner is aggrieved by the above order to the extent of the Tribunal not granting his reinstatement, not setting aside the suspension order dated 02.04.2009 and granting further time for completion of the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no power is conferred on the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to extend time in such a manner, since earlier also extension of time was granted, while the petitioner is under suspension; that despite cooperation from the petitioner, enquiry is not completed and the prolonged suspension caused mental agony to the petitioner; and that the petitioner is going to retire in September, 2010 and therefore, he seeks reinstatement of the petitioner into service, pending disciplinary proceedings. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing for the respondents contended that the delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings occurred while appointing a fresh enquiry officer. During the pendency of this writ petition, on 12.03.2009, we directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the relevant record with regard to the stage of the enquiry. Today, the learned Government Pleader reported no progress. It is relevant to extract the following proviso of law for the purpose of this case: Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, reads as under: “Sec.22. Procedure and powers of Tribunals:- (1) A Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made by the Central Government, the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its inquiry and deciding whether to sit in public or in private. (2) A Tribunal shall decide every application made to it as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every application shall be decided on a perusal of documents and written representations and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced. (3) A Tribunal shall have, for the purpose of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) subject to the provisions of Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or, documents; (f) reviewing its decisions; (g) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte; (h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and (i) any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government.” Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the Rules’) reads as under: “Rule 26. Orders and directions in certain cases:- The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, proviso of law and perusal of the material available on record, since the disciplinary proceedings are still pending, since the petitioner has been placed under suspension from 02.04.2009 onwards and since the petitioner is going to retire by the end of September, 2010, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition, however ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two months from today, failing which the petitioner shall be reinstated into service. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 19th March, 2010 GHN