THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.6930 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The first respondent was initially appointed in the Survey Department as Deputy Surveyor on 04.11.1982. He was promoted to the category of Surveyor on 26.05.1993 and later, to the Deputy Inspector of Survey on 17.04.2002. He along with 7 others was further promoted to the category of Inspector of Survey on 31.03.2003 subject to the condition of passing Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers’ Part-I within the period of probation, failing which, he should be reverted to the category of Deputy Inspector of Survey. Aggrieved by such condition, 6 out of them filed O.A.No.4708 of 2003 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, basing their claim on memo, dated 08.01.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.496, dated 07.04.2003, whereby, the Government granted exemption to similarly placed persons i.e. having passed the Accounts Test for Executive Officers, they are qualified and eligible for being promoted as Inspector of Survey on ad hoc basis. The Tribunal disposed of the aforesaid O.A. directing the authorities to grant benefit to them as was granted to certain other incumbents. The first respondent herein also filed O.A.No.4074 of 2003 seeking similar relief and the Tribunal while disposing of the same, permitted him to submit a representation to the petitioners, who in turn, shall pass appropriate orders as was done in the case of others within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the first respondent submitted a representation to the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Visakhapatnam, who in turn, forwarded the same to the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements & Land Records. On the ground that the first respondent has been continuing in the post of Inspector of Survey basing on the exemption given in G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 07.02.2004 and his name was fraudulently included in the exemption proposals, he was reverted to the post of Deputy Inspector of Survey vide proceedings, dated 15.04.2008, issued by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements & Land Records. Questioning the said proceedings, the first respondent filed O.A.No.3195 of 2008 and the Tribunal allowed the same observing that the reversion order could not survive so long as G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 07.02.2004, is in operation. In the meantime, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent along with two others on the ground of erroneous inclusion of his name in G.O.Ms.No.134, and he was placed under suspension vide proceedings, dated 07.06.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent preferred O.A.No.4161 of 2008, in which, the Tribunal suspended his suspension proceedings, dated 07.06.2008, vide interim order, dated 14.07.2008. Prior to granting interim order by the Tribunal, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.757, dated 20.06.2008 deleting the name of the first respondent from G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 07.02.2004. In effect, the first respondent was reverted as Deputy Inspector of Survey and was directed to report before the Regional Deputy Director, Survey & Land Records, Kakinada, vide proceedings, dated 02.09.2008, issued by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records. However, the first respondent did not report before the said authority. In the circumstances, he was issued charge memo, dated 05.09.2008 for fraudulent inclusion of his name in the proposals sent to the Government for exempting certain individuals from passing the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I. Questioning the said charge memo, the first respondent filed O.A.No.11084 of 2008, in which, the Tribunal by interim order, dated 07.07.2009, suspended the charge memo subject to final result of the O.A. The said order of the Tribunal is impugned in this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners filed V.M.A.No.2169 of 2009 in O.A.No.11084 of 2008 seeking vacation of interim order, dated 07.07.2009 but the Tribunal has not passed any order though one and half year has been elapsed. It is further submitted that the Tribunal passed ex parte impugned order and that in view of the impugned order, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the first respondent are held up. It is further submitted that the first respondent filed O.A.No.6711 of 2010 seeking promotion as Assistant Director and he has also filed C.A.No.1704 of 2001 for implementation of the interim orders passed in the said O.A. It is also submitted that in view of subsistence of the impugned order, the petitioners are unable to comply with the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.6711 of 2010. Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the impugned order was passed at the stage of admission and as O.A.No.11084 of 2008 is pending adjudication by the Tribunal, the impugned order does not call for any interference of this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is seen that the Tribunal suspended the charge memo issued against the petitioner subject to the final result of O.A.No.11084 of 2008, on 07.07.2009, and the said O.A. is pending adjudication and that consequent to the passing of the impugned order, disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are detained and on the said ground, the petitioners filed V.M.A.No.2169 of 2009 in O.A.No.11084 of 2008 seeking vacation of the impugned order. The limited grievance of the petitioners is that though one and half year elapsed, the Tribunal is not disposing of V.M.A. as well as O.A. Further, the matter is seized up before the Tribunal, as such, this Court cannot decide the matter by going into its merits in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to dispose of V.M.A.No.2169 of 2009 filed by the petitioners in O.A.No.11084 of 2008 in accordance with law, within the time frame of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ___________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J 22nd MARCH, 2011. kvni