IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No: 19043 of 2008 Between: 1 The Tansport Commissioner Andhra Pradesh, Transport Bhavan, Khairthabad, Hyderabad. 2 Enquiry Officer and Joint Tansport Commissioner, O/o. The Transport Commissioner Andhra Pradesh, Transport Bhavan, Khairthabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND V.Shabbir Hussain, O/o. Asst.Secretary, RTA, HYderabad, East Zone. .....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 to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P.Admn.Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.5305/2008 dated 18-07-2008 as being erroneous, 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 GM,J) This writ petition has been ﬁled challenging the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A.No.5305 of 2008 dated 18-07-2008. 2. The respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. He ﬁled the above O.A. seeking to declare the action of the petitioners herein in not considering his case for promotion to the post of Administrative Oﬃcer as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisos of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the ﬁrst respondent to consider his case for promotion to the post of Administrative Oﬃcer without reference to the Charge Memo No.271/VI/2006-I dated 11-09-2006 and the penalty imposed in the proceedings R.No.8235/C2/2005-2 dated 22-02-2007 on par with his junior. It is the case of the respondent that he was served with a Charge Memo No.271/VI/2006-I dated 11-09-2006. Earlier also disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and by the proceedings R.No.8235/C2/2005-2 dated 22-02-2007 he was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative eﬀect. It is his grievance that his case was considered and deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Administrative Oﬃcer keeping in view the pendency of disciplinary proceedings vide Charge Memo dated 11-09- 2006 and the subsistence of the punishment imposed on him vide proceedings dated 22-02-2007. It is his contention that in view of the Circular Memo No.34633/Ser.C/99 dated 04-11-1999 wherein it is clariﬁed that the employee whose increments were withheld shall not be recommended for promotion during the period for which the increments were ordered to be withheld, the punishment imposed on him by the proceedings dated 22-02-2007 does not subsist with eﬀect from May, 2008 and so he is entitled for promotion and his case could not have been overlooked in view of the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.342, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 04-08-1997. The Tribunal by keeping in view the Circular Memo dated 04-11-1999 and the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners herein in concluding the disciplinary proceedings dated 11-09-2006, in which 17 other oﬃcials were also involved, directed the petitioners herein to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Administrative Oﬃcer without reference to the disciplinary proceedings dated 11-09-2006 and further directed that such promotion shall be without prejudice to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and with a liberty to the petitioners herein to impose punishment in the promoted post. Hence, the respondents before the Tribunal filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that there is a distinction between stoppage of one increment with cumulative eﬀect and without cumulative eﬀect and drawn our attention to G.O.Ms.No.342, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 04-08-1997. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent contended that the said G.O. was clariﬁed in the Circular Memo No.34633/Ser.C/99 dated 04-11-1999 and drawn our attention to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in The Divisional Forest Oﬃcer, Khammam And Others vs. M. Ramakrishna Pitcheswara Rao (W.P.No.12283 of 2007 dated 14-06-2007) which squarely applies to the facts of the case. 4. Having regard to the fact that the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12283 of 2007 dated 14-06-2007 squarely applies to the facts of the case, we feel that the Tribunal is justiﬁed in directing the petitioners herein to promote the respondent on par with his juniors and therefore, the order impugned does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------------------- GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ------------------------------ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 2nd September 2008 cvrk .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies