THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Writ Petition Nos.16979, 16981 and 17232 of 2009 COMMON ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Since all these writ petitions arise out of the common order dated 27.04.2009, passed in O.A.Nos.2483 of 2008 with M.A.No.1658 of 2008, 8289 of 2008 with VMA No.106 of 2009 and 9686 of 2008 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), they are being disposed of together by this common order. 2. The brief facts are that the first respondent is working as Senior Assistant in the office of the second petitioner-District Collector. While the first respondent was working as In-charge of MLS point, Pangal, he was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 18.03.1994, on the ground of misappropriation of PDS rice. He was issued with a charge memo on 04.06.1994, for which he submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the second petitioner issued a show cause notice directing the first respondent to pay the double cost of the PDS rice found to be short on verification. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed O.A.No.2291 of 1994 before the Tribunal, which in turn, quashed the said show cause notice holding that the prescribed procedure was not followed and also directed the second petitioner not to recover the amount from the first respondent. Subsequently, the first respondent was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 20.01.1995. While so, the first respondent was again served with a charge memo dated 23.01.1995, for which he submitted his explanation on 26.07.1995. In the meanwhile, the second petitioner prepared the seniority list of the Senior Assistants for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildars and the name of the first respondent was placed at Sl.No.12 in the said list. It is stated that the second petitioner without considering the case of the first respondent, promoted the second respondent herein, who is junior to the first respondent and whose name was placed at Sl.No.16 in the seniority list. Hence, the first respondent filed O.A.No.2483 of 2008 seeking to declare the action of the petitioners in not considering his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar without reference to the departmental proceedings pending against him, as illegal and arbitrary. The District Supply Officer, Mahaboobnagar, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and he submitted his report on 15.06.2002, based on which a show cause notice dated 15.09.2008, was issued to the first respondent to show cause as to why stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect should not be imposed on him besides recovery of Rs.1,31,557-50ps. Challenging the said notice, the first respondent filed O.A.No.8289 of 2008. He also filed another O.A.No.9686 of 2008 seeking to quash the enquiry proceedings including the show cause notice dated 15.09.2008, issued by the second petitioner. The Tribunal clubbed all these O.As., and passed a common order on 27.04.2009 quashing the disciplinary proceedings and also directed the petitioners to accord all consequential benefits arising thereof. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed all these writ petitions. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. This Court, while admitting W.P.Nos.16979 and 16981 of 2009 on 18.08.2009, granted interim suspension of the common order impugned, whereas W.P.No.17232 of 2009 was admitted on 02.09.2009 and adjourned to post along with the above said two writ petitions. For vacating the said interim suspension, the first respondent filed WVMP Nos.2716 and 2720 of 2009 in W.P.Nos.16979 and 16981 of 2009 respectively, wherein this Court passed the following order on 14.10.2009, which is extracted as under: “These writ petitions arise out of a common order dated 27.04.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal disposing of 3 separate O.As., filed by the respondent herein. W.P.No.16979 of 2009 is directed against the order passed in O.A.No.2483 of 2008 where the relief sought for by the respondent is to consider his case for promotion; W.P.No.16981 of 2009 is directed against the order passed in O.A.No.8289 of 2008 where the relief sought for by the respondent is to quash the show cause notice dated 15.09.2008 wherein the respondent was asked to furnish explanation to the proposed punishment to be imposed on him; and W.P.No.17232 of 2009 is directed against O.A.No.9686 of 2008 filed by the respondent seeking to quash the charge memo in the disciplinary case including the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of delay. Under the order impugned herein, the Tribunal, while allowing the O.As., apart from quashing the charge memo and the disciplinary inquiry, also granted the other reliefs seeking consideration for promotion. These writ petitions, moved by the State, were admitted by us earlier and interim suspension of the impugned order therein was granted in two writ petitions except in W.P.No.17232 of 2009. However, since the order impugned is a common order and all the writ petitions are connected arising out of the said common order, suspension of the impugned order in two other cases would operate in the third writ petition also. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent has filed applications seeking vacation of the orders of interim suspension passed by this Court in WPMP Nos.22283 and 22285 of 2009. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for the petitioners and Sri Raja Reddy Koneti for the respondent. The subject matter of all the three writ petitions covers the disciplinary case initiated against the respondent under a charge memo dated 23.01.1995 and relates to the respondent not being able to account for the 97 quintals of rice while being a custodian of the said rice, and being in the disciplinary proceedings at the stage of final show cause notice and without submitting any explanation thereto the respondent had questioned the second show cause notice before the Tribunal in O.A.No.8289 of 2009 impugned herein. The contentions on behalf of both sides virtually amount to addressing various issues arising in the main writ petitions itself and while hearing the miscellaneous applications it will not be feasible, keeping in view the record produced by the parties covering the entire disciplinary case from pre-1995 onwards. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent has been promoted and the interim suspension granted by this Court may not affect respondent. We are, however, of the view that since even according to the respondent he was already promoted, his complete exoneration from the disciplinary proceedings granted by the Tribunal under the orders impugned is being prima facie not sustainable in view of the fact that the respondent has questioned the charge memo dated 23.01.1995 by filing O.A., in 2008 seeking its quashment. The respondent has participated in the disciplinary case and at this stage of second show cause notice, approached the Tribunal. Whether the State is responsible for the delay, or whether the respondent is responsible for the delay in non-completion of disciplinary case, is the matter which requires to be gone into in the main writ petitions. In the circumstances, therefore, we are of the opinion that the interim suspension already granted by this Court in these writ petitions be made absolute and the writ petitions itself be posted for final hearing. Expedite the hearing of the writ petitions. As the interim suspension granted by us is made absolute by this order, the disciplinary proceedings may revive against the respondent herein. In order to protect the respondent there from pending the hearing of the writ petition, we further direct that the final order of punishment, if any, passed by the disciplinary authority shall, however, be kept in abeyance and shall not be given effect to without the leave of this Court”. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II vehemently contended that pursuant to the above said order, the disciplinary authority proceeded with the enquiry against the first respondent, but he kept final orders of punishment in abeyance. Therefore, she prays to dispose of these writ petitions. 6. Since the disciplinary proceedings pertaining to the year of 1994, and this Court, by virtue of the order dated 14.10.2009, has taken the view that as the first respondent was already promoted, his complete exoneration from the disciplinary proceedings granted by the Tribunal under the common order impugned is prima facie not sustainable in view of the fact that he questioned the charge memo dated 23.01.1995, by filing a O.A., in 2008 seeking its quashment, and also in view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioners are curtailed to pass the final orders of punishment because of the interim order passed by this Court on 14.10.2009, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to pass the final order of punishment against the first respondent in accordance with law, and communicate to him the same. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:14.06.2011. sj