IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 275 of 2009 Between: 1 The State of A.P. Rep by its Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Cooperation Departemnt, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, A.P. Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Director of Agriculture, (Soil Conservation) Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Kokkiligadda Seshagiri Rao, Agriculture Officer (Retired), O/o. Asst. Director of Agriculture, (Soil Conservation) Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, R/o. C/o. Rama Krishna, H.No. 9-6-18/1, Sanyasi Basthi, Kothadem, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the orders in CA No. 406/2007 in OA No. 8003/2002, dated 4-12-2008 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and erroneous. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri P.Swaroop Reddy, J.) This writ petition is filed against the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in C.A.No.406 of 2007 in O.A.No.8003 of 2002, dated 4.12.2008. The relevant facts, in brief, are the respondent herein while he was working as Agricultural Officer in the Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation), Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, was placed under suspension vide proceedings in Rc.No.Estt.IV(2)1071/88, dated 21.6.1988 issued by the 2nd respondent pending into the allegations of irregularities and mis- management by the respondent in execution of soil conservation works in Bhadrachalam Sub-Division. The Joint Director of Agriculture was appointed as enquiry officer vide proceedings dated 11.11.1989 and the enquiry officer issued charge memo dated 17.2.1990 framing in total 24 charges against the respondent. The respondent submitted his explanation dated 31.7.1990 denying the charges. Thereafter, the enquiry officer has submitted report dated 25.1.1991 holding that the charges are proved. A show cause notice vide Government Memo dated 27.5.1993 was issued to the respondent calling for explanation as to why an amount o Rs.7,42,879/- should not be recovered from him besides imposing punishment. The respondent has submitted an explanation, dated 1.2.1994, to the said show cause notice. However, the respondent retired from service on attaining age of superannuation on 31.7.1996. In view of the subsequent developments, second show cause notice dated 18.6.2001 was issued calling for explanation for recovery of the amount as well as the proposing punishment of withholding of entire pension and pensionary benefits. Assailing the said show cause notice dated 18.6.2001, the respondent filed O.A.No.5203 of 2001 which was disposed of with a direction that the respondent shall submit explanation by 20.8.2001 and the authorities were directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the said directions, respondent has submitted his explanation dated 2.8.2001 and on considering the same the Government issued orders vide G.O.Rt.No.735, dated 15.2.2002, imposing punishment of withholding of entire pension and pensionary benefits and also ordered for recovery of the amount of Rs.7,42,879/- from the retiral benefits of the respondent. Assailing the said orders, the respondent filed O.A.No.8003 of 2002 with a prayer to quash the said G.O.Rt.No.735 and also to declare that he is entitled to be treated as on duty from the date of suspension i.e., 21.6.1988 till the date of retirement with monetary benefits and also for promotion etc. The Tribunal allowed the said O.A.No.8003 of 2002 by orders dated 16.11.2006 on the sole ground that the Government have no jurisdiction to impose penalty and the matter ought to have been referred for enquiry by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and directed for conducting de novo enquiry. Thereafter, G.O.Rt. No.932, dated 25.7.2007, has been issued appointing an enquiry officer of the 2nd petitioner to conduct regular inquiry against the respondent. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed C.A.No.406 of 2007 in the said O.A.No.8003 of 2002 and the Tribunal passed orders dated 4.12.2008 directing the personal appearance of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said orders, this writ petition has been filed. In spite of service of notice, petitioners did not appear before the Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioners that they have implemented the orders of the Tribunal in the said O.A.No.8003 of 2002 by appointing an enquiry officer vide G.O.Rt.No.932 dated 25.7.2007. In fact, the respondent also questions the order of the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.932, dated 25.7.2007 in another O.A.No.5865 of 2007. Therefore, unless the respondent succeeds in the pending O.A.No.5865 of 2007, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any act of contempt. At this stage, it is also brought to our notice that the Tribunal allowed the said O.A.No.5865 of 2007 by an order dated 4.12.2008 and questioning the said order; the Government has filed W.P.No.7026 of 2009 wherein the order of the Tribunal has been suspended on 6.4.2009 by way of interim order. In view of the pendency of the writ petition against the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.5865 of 2007 and in view of the subsistence of the interim orders suspending the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.5865 of 2007, we are of the opinion that it is not desirable to entertain the contempt application at this stage of the proceedings. In this view of the matter, the contempt case in C.A.No.406 of 2007 is superfluous and thereby, the same is not maintainable. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 26.6.2009 kpr