IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23410 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Director Treauries And Accounts Department, Tilak Road Hyderabad 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary Finance (F.P.) Department,Secretariat,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Smt.Noorus Saba Qureshi, H.No.19-2-11/29,Misri gunj, Hyderabad 2 The Accountant General of AP.,Lakdikapool, Hyderabad (R2 is a formal party as no relief is sought against him) .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Hon`ble A.P.Admn.Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA.No.7131/2007 dated 13.2.2008 as being eeroneous illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition is filed in the nature of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records in O.A.No. 7131 of 2007 dated 13.02.2008 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and to declare the same as erroneous and contrary to law. By virtue of the said order, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the respondents herein- applicants therein within a period of six months, failing which, the disciplinary proceedings should be deemed to have been dropped. The learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the time limit and should not have imposed the default clause while disposing of the matter and the same is arbitrary and illegal. He has drawn our attention to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 26456 of 2007, wherein and whereby this Court set aside the conditional order dated 16.10.2006 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in M.A.No. 3147 of 2006 and the petitioners therein were directed to pass appropriate orders basing on the written explanation to the show-cause notice in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations in that order. Therefore, he prays this court to set aside the order of the Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the Tribunal is justified in directing the petitioners to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months. He further contended that since the first respondent has retired from service in the year 2005 on attaining the age of superannuation, there is no progress in the enquiry and the Tribunal below has rightly directed the respondents to complete and conclude the enquiry. As seen from the record the first respondent herein while working as Junior Accounts Officer was served with a charge memo dated 14.2.2004 which reads as hereunder:- “Smt. Nooros Soba Quereshi then JAO, O/o APPO, Nampally. Presently working as AO, O/o Physically Handicapped Department while working as JAO, O/o APPO, Nampally during the period from 1994 to February, 1995 has failed to follow the procedure prescribed in AP Treasury Code and the instructions issued thereon from time to time in making pension disbursements in respect of the Pension Payment Orders listed in the statement enclosed to the statement of imputations and thereby given scope for drawals and was responsible for a loss of Rs. 1,168/- to the exchequer. Thus Smt. Nooros Soba Quereshi then JAO, O/o APPO, Nampally, presently working as AO, O/o Physically Handicapped Department by the above mentioned acts has exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby contravened Rule 3 (A) (2) of A.P., Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964”. As no reasons were put forth by the petitioner herein, as to why the matter has not been referred to the Commissioner of Enquiries immediately, the Tribunal, to avoid further delay in referring the matter to the Commissioner of Enquiries, directed the petitioners herein to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the first respondent herein within a period of six months and failing which, the disciplinary proceedings should be deemed to have been dropped. The order dated 20.2.2008 passed in W.P.No. 26456 of 2007, relied upon by the petitioners herein, is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners-Officials herein to segregate the case of the first respondent herein from the other cases and complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 01.12.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2CD copies