IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25059 and 25437 of 2008 W.P.No.25059 of 2008 Between: N. Ranga Vittal, S/o. M. Narsinga Rao, Office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Estt.I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer-IN-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Housing Cell, Collectorate Hyderabad. 4 The Managing Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 especially in the nature of Writ of Certiorari a) Calling for records pertaining to common order dt. 12-8-2008 on the file of A.P.A.T. orders made in O.A.No. 1113 & 1115/2006 and a quash the same b) Consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion as Executive Engineer atleast on par with his junior. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : WRIT PETITION NO : 25437 of 2008 Between: N. Ranga Vittal S/o. M. Narsinga Rao O/o. The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Estt.I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Housing Cell, Collectorate, Hyderabad. 4 The Managing Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 especially in the nature of Writ of Certiorari (a) calling for records pertaining to common order dt. 12.8.2008 orders on the file of A.P.Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad made in O.A.No.1113 & 1115/2006 and a quash the same (b) consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Executive Engineer atleast on par with his junior. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: (Per GM, J) Since the petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same and the writ petitions arise out of the common order, they are being disposed of by this common order. Both these writ petitions are filed assailing the common order dated 12.08.2008 passed in O.A.No.1113 of 2006 with VMA No.1046 of 2006 and O.A.No.1115 of 2006 with VMA No.1054 of 2006 and C.A.No.537 of 2006 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The petitioner is working as Deputy Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department. The 3rd respondent-District Collector has issued a charge memo dated 02.09.2000 to the petitioner alleging that he committed certain irregularities while working as Deputy Executive Engineer, on deputation, in Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation. He submitted explanation on 30.09.2000. Thereafter, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.281 dated 19.11.2004 framing two more charges against the petitioner, for which, he submitted an explanation dated 23.09.2005 denying the said charges. It is stated that final orders have not been passed. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are promoting some of his juniors as Executive Engineers, withholding his promotion on the ground of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, he filed O.A.Nos.1113 and 1115 of 2006, seeking the relief to consider his case for promotion as Executive Engineer on In-charge basis, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. In the said O.As., the Tribunal issued an interim direction on 01.03.2006, to the respondents to conclude the said disciplinary proceedings before the next DPC is convened for effecting promotions to the post of Executive Engineer, failing which, the said DPC shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer without reference to the disciplinary proceedings. For non-compliance of the said interim direction, the petitioner filed C.A.No.537 of 2006. The Tribunal clubbed the O.As along with the vacate petitions and the said CA, and dismissed O.A.No.1113 of 2006 with usual costs and further dismissed O.A.No.1115 of 2006 with exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the respondent authorities, who will be entitled to recover the same from the salary of the petitioner in three equal instalments from the pay of October 2008. Hence, he filed the present writ petitions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Tribunal failed to note that the two O.As relate to different charge memos and they do not relate to one and the same charge memo. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that though the Government has issued charge memo on 02.09.2000, and the Tribunal issued an interim direction dated 01.03.2006 to the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings before the next DPC is convened for effecting promotions, there is no progress in the enquiry till today. Thus, he prays to allow both the writ petitions. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that as the petitioner has committed serious irregularities, his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer cannot be considered. He further contended that after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, his promotion will be considered in accordance with the rules. Admittedly, one charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 02.09.2000 and another charge memo was issued on 19.11.2004. It is not disputed that the respondents have neither concluded the said disciplinary proceedings nor considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. Further, the Tribunal has not considered the O.As on merits, but proceeded to observe the conduct of the petitioner in filing two applications as if the cause of action is the same. However, the cause of action for filing the two O.As is different and distinctive. The cause of action for O.A.No.1113 of 2006 is in respect of charge memo dated 19.11.2004 and whereas the cause of action for O.A.No.1115 of 2006 is in respect of charge memo dated 02.09.2000. In the circumstances, were are of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted to the Tribunal. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, on merits, uninfluenced by the earlier order passed in the impugned O.As or the observations made herein above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:20.11.2008 sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}