HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.No.26130 of 2009 Dt.21.12.2009 Between: P.Dayasagar .. Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.No.26130 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard both the learned counsel. This writ petition is against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.11323 of 2009, dated 23.10.2009, filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed the said O.A., seeking to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Excise Superintendent without reference to the charge memo issued in Rc.No.A1/611-2/2005, dated 18.4.2006, with all consequential benefits. An interim relief was also claimed seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Excise Superintendent without reference to the said charge memo. As the interim relief and the main prayer in the O.A. are one and the same, the Tribunal while issuing notice before admission returnable in four weeks on 23.10.2009, however, observed that any promotions made shall be subject to the result of the O.As and the petitioner is also at liberty to file an appeal before the higher authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that a charge memo was issued to the petitioner in Rc.No.A1/611-2/2005, dated 18.4.2006, and the said charge reads as follows: “That you Sri P.Dayasagar, P&EI, obtained that the pay protection in the post of Prohibition and Excise Inspector for the previous service rendered as Agriculture Officer in the Agriculture Department and got his pay fixed at Rs.3530/- in the scale of 2750 – 5960 w.e.f. 2.11.1996 and received the excess amount of Rs.1,75,170/- towards arrears of pay and allowance on account of pay protection, though he resigned his post in Agriculture Department and not entitled to pay protection as per Rule 30(c) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. You have claimed and received an excess amount of Rs.1,75,170/- for which you are not entitled to. Thus, you have exhibited lack of total integrity and sense of propriety by claiming pay protection and receiving excess payment of Rs.1,75,170/- for which you are not entitled to. Thereby, you have violated Rule 3(1) of APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964”. Petitioner questioned the said charge memo dated 18.4.2006 in O.A.No.4823 of 2008 and the Tribunal by order, dated 7.7.2008 pending further orders in the O.A., suspended the said charge memo for a period of 14 days and the same was extended until further orders. Earlier, the petitioner also filed O.A.No.2217 of 2007 questioning the proceedings dated 7.12.2005 and the consequential proceedings dated 22.3.2007 and the Tribunal while issuing notice returnable in four weeks, suspended the said proceedings by order, dated 19.4.2007. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that when the charge memo itself has been suspended, there cannot be any legal impediment to consider his case for promotion. It is further stated that having issued the charge memo in 2006 the enquiry has not been completed and therefore he is constrained to file the said O.A.No.4823 of 2008 and got obtained the interim suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far as P.Venkata Ramaiah, Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, who sanctioned pay protection to the petitioner, is concerned, the Government conducted an enquiry and the charge was proved by the enquiry officer vide Government memo No.35990/Vig.V(2)/2005-15, dated 3.7.2007 of Revenue (Vig.V) Department, against which he made a representation on 23.7.2007 and the said representation was examined and observed that the pay of the two individuals in old post can be protected under F.R 22(a)(iv), but the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent is not competent and the Head of the Department viz., the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise is competent and accordingly the disciplinary proceedings were dropped against the said Prohibition and Excise Superintendent with a warning to be more careful in future since the pay protection is in accordance with rules vide orders of the Government in G.O.Rt.No.1114, Revenue (Vigilance-V) Department, dated 3.8.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the superior officer, who sanctioned pay protection to the petitioner, has been exonerated from the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner is also entitled for the similar relief and there cannot be any justification on the part of the Government in not conducting enquiry from 2006 to 2008. It is stated that when the charge memo itself has been suspended by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that charges are pending against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is entitled for promotion. The Tribunal only issued notice in the impugned O.A. and did not reject his request for grant of interim relief. When the Government passed orders against the superior officer in G.O.Rt.No.1114, dated 3.8.2009, with regard to his involvement in the disciplinary proceedings, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to request the Tribunal to hear the present O.A. along with the connected O.A.No.4823 of 2008 and O.A.No.2217 of 2007 and also O.A.No.11324 of 2009 filed by the similarly situated person and dispose of the same. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the Tribunal to consider and dispose of O.A.Nos.11323 of 2009 and 11324 of 2009 and also the connected O.A.Nos.4823 of 2008 and 2217 of 2007 on priority basis preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. 21.12.2009 Note: Issue copy within three days B.O kpr