THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.9049 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.6003 of 2009 with C.A.No.703 of 2009 and VMA No.1624 of 2009, wherein the charge memo, dated 26.03.2009, issued to the first respondent herein, was set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows; The first respondent is working as In-charge Regional Transport Officer at Rajahmundry. While he was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Vijayawada, during 2001-2003, a criminal case being C.C.No.6 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB, Vijayawada, was registered against him alleging that he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.600/-through a private person said to have been engaged by him and after trial, he found not guilty of the charges and acquitted on 29.03.2007. It is stated by the first respondent that at the time of consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officer, the petitioners issued charge memo dated 26.03.2009 framing the same charges in C.C.No.6 of 2004, though he was acquitted of the said charges. Hence, he filed O.A.No.6003 of 2009 before the Tribunal, which in turn set aside the said charge memo and directed the petitioners to promote the first respondent to the post of Regional Transport Officer from Multi-zone-I on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II vehemently contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 08.10.2002, the Government issued memo dated 25.02.2009 for initiation of departmental proceedings against the first respondent, who engaged a private person for collecting bribes on his behalf. He contended that the Tribunal ought not to have directed the petitioners to promote the first respondent to the post of Regional Transport Officer on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits as the said post is a selection post and the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) prepared the seniority list as per the inter se seniority of each individual. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the petitioners issued the charge memo on 26.03.2009 to the first respondent after two years of his acquittal by the competent Criminal Court and the same has attained finality and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the charge memo by the impugned order, which need not be interfered with by this Court. He contended that as the DPC meeting is sought to be convened on 26th of this month, he prays to direct the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent for promotion. 5. There is no dispute with regard to the acquittal of the first respondent by the competent Criminal Court in C.C.No.6 of 2004 vide its judgment dated 29.03.2007 and no appeal has been preferred by the petitioners against the same. After a lapse of two years, the charge memo was issued to the first respondent on 26.03.2009 framing the charge that he committed grave misconduct by engaging a private person Sri M. Lakshmana Rao as his agent to collect bribes from the owners of the vehicles and also on 08.03.2003 at about 12.45 PM he engaged the said person and through him, he demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.600/-from the complainant, by name, Patibandla Hanumantha Rao, resident of Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada. In the order impugned, the Tribunal observed that the charges framed in the criminal case and in the departmental enquiry are one and the same and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat (2006) 5 SCC 446. Further, it also observed that though two years have elapsed from the date of the acquittal of the first respondent, no appeal has been preferred by the petitioners till today and there is no explanation from them with regard to the delay in issuing the charge memo on 26.03.2009 and therefore, set aside the same. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has gone through the material on record and rightly set aside the charge memo dated 26.03.2009, but it has exceeded its jurisdiction in giving a direction to the petitioners to promote the first respondent to the post of Regional Transport Officer from Multi-zone on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent for promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officer, but not on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits. 6. With the above modification, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:22.04.2010. Note: Issue CC by two days. (Bo) sj