THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4677 OF 1999 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, dated 10-12-1998 passed in O.A.NO. 1000 of 1997 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and to quash or set aside the observations made in paras 32, 33 and 36(b) of the order, this writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 1000 of 1997 assailing inaction of the respondents in proceedings to complete the inquiry inasmuch as there was no progress from 14-6-1995 to 22-2-1996 for a period of almost eight months inspite of a finding to complete proceedings prescribing outer limit in the earlier round of litigation by the Tribunal, in O.A.No.244 of 1993. Therefore, the petitioner submits that the charge memo is liable to be quashed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Sorting Assistant in the year 1966. He was regularly appointed as Inspector in the year 1980. From the year 1981 to 25-6-1985 the petitioner worked as Inspector (Uniforms) in the Postal Stores Department, Hyderabad. While the petitioner was working as Inspector (Uniforms) in the Postal Stores Department, it is alleged that he either misused or failed to account the uniform materials, such as cloths, sarees, garments, FP Chappals, umbrellas, water proof coats, blue dusters, pugrees and blouse pieces, and thereby caused pecuniary loss to the Department to the extent of lakhs of rupees. The petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him. The Director of Postal Services, A.P. Northern Region, Hyderabad, issued a charge memo vide his memo No. RDH/ST/20-5/2/86, dt.7-2-1986 against the petitioner. Since, there was no progress in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.244 of 1993. On 11-6-1995 the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. No. 244 of 1993 with the following directions. “ The inquiry with reference to charge memo dated 26-2-1986 has to be disposed of expeditiously and preferably by 31-10-1995. The question as to whether the disciplinary authority can proceed with the inquiry with reference to charge memo dated 26-7-1985 as far as the applicant is concerned is left open for consideration as and when it arises after the disposal of the criminal case against Sri K.V. Ramana and others referred to. It is needless to say that the turn of the applicant had already come for consideration or promotion. His case might have been already considered by following the sealed cover procedure and if it is not so done, the same said procedure has to be followed”. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that even after the specific directions of the Tribunal, the disciplinary proceedings have not yet been finalized. Though a number of Inquiry Officers were appointed, yet they did not complete the inquiry. Hence, he prayed to quash the charge memo dated 7-2-1986 as the same has not been concluded within the mandatory period prescribed in O.A.NO.244 of 1993. 5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the Inquiry Officers were changed on account of administrative reasons and that they could not complete the disciplinary proceedings within the time stipulated due to non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner. 6. Admittedly, the Tribunal had given specific directions to the respondents to conclude the enquiry on or before 31-10-1995. However, the respondents neither complied the said direction nor sought for any extension of time. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the respondents appointed as many as eleven Inquiry Officers, on one pretext or the other, they did not complete the Inquiry, in spite of a specific direction given by the Tribunal in O.A. Therefore, the charges are liable to be quashed. 8. In view of the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner and also in view of the fact that the petitioner had ten years of service, the Tribunal directed the respondents to go for fresh Inquiry if they so desired. The petitioner approached this Court and obtained interim orders of suspension of disciplinary proceedings and thereby, the proceedings have been dragged successfully for ten years. 9. Now, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the applicant has attained the age of superannuation. The reason for not complying with the direction of the Tribunal to initiate the enquiry afresh within the stipulated time, is only due to the interim suspension granted by this Court and therefore, the authorities cannot be blamed for not complying with the order of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the nature of the charges, we feel it just and proper to grant some reasonable time so as to enable the authorities to initiate the enquiry afresh and complete the same. Accordingly, time is granted till 30th July, 2008 to the authorities so as to initiate the enquiry against the petitioner afresh and complete the same. The order of the tribunal is modified accordingly. 10. Subject to the above modification, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. _____________________ S.ASHOK KUMAR, J. 26TH MARCH, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4677 OF 1999 26th March, 2008