IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15243 of 2008 Between: S.Showkath Ali S/o. S.Abdul Rahman Guntakal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector & Executive Director, A.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd., Ananthapur. 2 The District Manager, A.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd., Ananthapur District. .....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 or order direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the delay and inaction on the part of the respondents in passing the final order in the departmental proceedings initiated against the ptitioner as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to pass final orders in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15243 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Technical Work Inspector in the A.P. Housing Corporation Limited at Guntakal, Anantapur District. The 1st respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, by issuing a charge sheet dated 10.10.2007. The petitioner was also placed under suspension. It is stated that the enquiry officer has since submitted a report and that the petitioner was reinstated into service. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he was not released the salary for the period of suspension and that several anomalies are taking place, in the matter of entrustment of works and duties. He seeks a direction to the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. With the submission of the report by the enquiry officer, it becomes competent and tenable, for the disciplinary authority to pass final orders, by issuing a second show cause notice, in case any punishment is proposed. On the other hand, there is also a possibility for the disciplinary authority to drop the proceedings, in case the charges are held not proved. Early conclusion of such proceedings would be in the interests of the employee facing the proceedings as well as the organization. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 17.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15243 of 2008 Date: 17.07.2008 JSU