IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 21920 of 2008 Between: Y. Venakta Rami Reddy, S/o. Laxmi Reddy, Logging Division, R/o. Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Conservator of Forests, Kurnool. 2 The Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Nandyal Division, Nandyal, Kurnool. .....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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRITOF CERTIORARI to call for the records relating to O.A.no. 3610/2008 on the ﬁle fo the A.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and set aside the orders to the extent of imposing the condition (if the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded by the respondent by passing the ﬁnal orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order) in O.A.No. 3610/2008 dt. 28-08- 2008 on the ﬁle of the A.p. State Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and consequently direct the respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Forest Range Oﬃcer with eﬀect from the date of eligibility without reference to the disciplinary proceedigns intitiated vide charge memo dt. 20-2-2006 and 04-04- 2008 in the interest ofjustice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.21920 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to set aside the order dated 28-08-2008 in O.A.No.3610 of 2008 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which is subject to the condition that if the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded by the competent authority within three months thereof. 2. The petitioner herein ﬁled the above O.A. seeking direction to the oﬃcial respondents to promote him to the post of Deputy Forest Range Oﬃcer as per seniority forthwith, without reference to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. The case of the petitioner is that his juniors were promoted to the said post and one R.Ramakrishnaiah, who is similarly situated as that of the petitioner, was given promotion. The respondent contested O.A. contending that the petitioner could not be promoted in view of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, directed the oﬃcial respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Forest Range Oﬃcer, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings, ‘if they are not concluded within three months from the date of receipt of its order, by passing ﬁnal orders’. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal ought not to have ﬁxed the time frame for concluding the disciplinary proceedings and observed that promotion, if any given, shall be without prejudice to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and perused the record. 4. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner due to which his promotion had been stalled. It appears that the disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded within reasonable time, and there is an existing vacancy in the said post. As such, the Tribunal in its discretion had directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Deputy Forest Range Oﬃcer, but ﬁxed the time frame to complete the proceedings. When the disciplinary proceedings are pending, it is obvious that such proceedings have to be concluded at some point of time. The disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued indeﬁnitely and the Tribunal had ﬁxed the time frame for concluding the same. The disciplinary proceedings once initiated must come to a logical end either ﬁnding the delinquent oﬃcer guilty or otherwise. The time limit ﬁxed for completing the disciplinary proceedings, even though the authority wants to promote the petitioner, cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 30-09-2008 bsc