THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.30377 of 2010 Date: 15.03.2011 Between: The Govt. of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Revenue (Vig.I) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 2 others .. Petitioners AND M. Gandhi Krishna and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.30377 of 2010 ORDER (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed): The writ petition is filed seeking to issue an order, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 04.08.2010 passed in O.A.No.5207 of 2010 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The first respondent, who is the applicant in O.A.No.5207 of 2010, is working as Junior Assistant since 1995 in the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Srikakulam. On 22.03.2006 a case was registered against him by the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Vizianagaram Range in Crime No.5/RC-ACB/VZM/2006 alleging that he possessed assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income. The first respondent submitted his explanation dated 24.06.2008 denying the said allegation and requested to drop further proceedings. Through Memo. No.20696/Vig.1(2)/2006-5, dated 15.07.2009 the Government rejected the said explanation and on receipt of the report from ACB officials, disciplinary action was initiated against him. Though he was placed under suspension initially, subsequently, he was reinstated into service and after reinstatement, he is being given postings in places which are said to be non-focal posts on account of which, he is being looked down by others. Aggrieved the same, the first respondent filed the said O.A. before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad contending that mere registration of a case against him for possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income, cannot take away his right to be considered for posting on par with others and it amounts to discrimination. 3. After considering the matter in detail, the A.P. Administrative Tribunal allowed the said OA, through order dated 04.08.2010 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the first respondent for giving posting on par with other junior assistants. Aggrieved by the same, the Government filed the present writ petition. 4. While admitting the writ petition, on 22.12.2010 this Court passed the following interim order in WPMP No.30377 of 2010: “There shall be interim suspension for a period of two months. However, this order does not preclude the petitioners-authorities from completing enquiry immediately since though charge memo was framed and charge sheet was also issued in the year 2003, but there is no progress in the enquiry. In the circumstances, we also deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners-authorities to complete the enquiry within a period of two months from today. Office to post the writ petition after two months.” 5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 6. On instructions, the Government Pleader for Services-II submitted that the enquiry initiated against the first respondent has already been completed and in the enquiry, it is found that the first respondent-applicant was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. He further submitted that the enquiry report is likely to be submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority. 7. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that in similar circumstances O.A.No.828 of 2010 was allowed by the Tribunal on 06.02.2010 directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicants therein for giving posting orders on par with other Commercial Tax Officers. In that case, both the applicants, who were working as Commercial Tax Officers, were posted in non-focal posts and their cases were not considered for posting on par with other Commercial Tax Officers, as the cases of disproportionate assets were registered against them. In those circumstances, the Tribunal considering the G.O.Ms.No. 143, dated 21.06.2007 and also other circumstances, allowed that O.A., and directed the respondents to consider giving the postings to those applicants on par with others. 8. Be that as it may, since it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Services-II that the enquiry initiated against the first respondent has already been completed and in the enquiry, he is said to be found guilty of the charges levelled against him, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions. 8. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the Enquiry Report and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the first respondent-applicant, expeditiously. In the meanwhile, the petitioners-authorities are also directed to give appropriate posting orders to the first respondent- applicant as expeditiously as possible. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ________________ K.G. Shankar, J Date: 15.03.2011 Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/o.) Isn