IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 6634 of 2008 Between: 1 State of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raja and Rural Employment, A.P. Hyderabad. .....PETITIONERS AND P. Anjaiah,Occ: M.P.D.O. (Retired) R/o. H.No. 1-4-6912, Road No.8, Hubshiguda, Hyderabad. .....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 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 OA No. 977/2004 dt.27-11-2006 as being erroneous, illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR W.P. No. 6634 of 2008 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 27.11.2006 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 977 of 2004. The respondent herein filed the said O.A. before the Tribunal seeking to quash Government Memo No. 967/VS.II/1/2001-8 dated 3.5.2002 and G.O.Rt.No. 1332 dated 12.8.2002 as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents – petitioners herein to pay full pension, gratuity and other retiremental benefits with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of retirement of the respondent – applicant. The Tribunal by its order dated 27.11.2006 held that the pensionary benefits cannot be withheld on the ground that the criminal appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the trial Court is pending in the High Court and that too without any stay of operation of the orders of the trial Court. The Tribunal accordingly directed to process the pension papers of the petitioner and release the pensionary benefits to the respondent within six weeks. Hence this writ petition by the petitioners – respondents in the O.A. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and perused the material available on record. Though the learned Government Pleader sought to impress this Court by contending that the order passed by the Tribunal is not based on proper appreciation of facts and therefore the same is liable be set aside, a perusal of the material available on record discloses that the A.C.B. case filed against the respondent ended in acquittal on 17.4.2001 itself. Though the petitioners filed appeal against the said judgment passed by the trial Court, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, there is no suspension of operation of the judgment passed by the trial Court. It seems that this Court passed orders on 3.12.2003 giving liberty to the petitioners herein to consider as to whether they should proceed with the charge memo issued against the petitioner in view of the acquittal by the competent Court in respect of similar charge, but no orders have been passed by the petitioners pursuant to the said orders. In this connection, the Tribunal rightly relied on a judgment of Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal v. Hari Ramulu[1] wherein it is held that the pendency of appeal against acquittal will not amount to continuation of the proceedings. It is further held that continuation of proceedings must relate to investigation, enquiry or trial, and such investigation, enquiry or trial, if any have to come to an end with a judgment of acquittal. Having perused the material available on record, we find that the grounds stated for not processing the pension case of the respondent are not convincing. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, when the appeal before the High Court is decided, the petitioners herein are at liberty to take further action in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we do not find any error or legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. S. ASHOK KUMAR, J. Date: 28-03-2008. MVB. [1] 2004 SLR 1991