THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO :12034 of 2011 Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The department filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to and connected with order dated 16.3.2011 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No.1174 of 2011 and to quash the same. The facts in brief are that through proceedings dated 1.10.2008, the 1st respondent who was working as Principal of SKBR Government Degree College, Macherla, Guntur District was assigned the full Additional Charge of the post of Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Guntur. While so, the Ministerial and redeployed Staff working in the office of the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, filed a petition before the A.P. State Human Rights Human Commission, Hyderabad stating that the 1st respondent is harassing them unduly. Through proceedings dated 19.10.2010, the Human Rights Commission has directed the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the 1st petitioner herein, to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter and submit a report to the Commission by 30.11.2010. Subsequently, a two men committee was appointed to conduct enquiry into the matter and the committee after conclusion of the enquiry, submitted its report, basing on which, the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 17.2.2011 submitted proposals to the Government recommending for transfer of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the 2nd petitioner herein, has issued proceedings dated 24.2.2011 discharging the petitioner from the full additional charge of the post of Regional Joint Director, Collegiate Education, Guntur and directed him to report as Principal of Government Degree College, Macherla. Challenging these proceedings, the petitioner filed O.A. No.1174 of 2011 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, through the impugned order dated 16.3.2011 while admitting the O.A. has suspended the proceedings dated 24.2.2011 of the petitioners 1 and 2. Challenging the said order, the department filed the present writ petition. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the department would contend that by the proceedings dated 24.2.2011, the 1st respondent-applicant has been discharged of the additional charge arrangements and no adverse order affecting the service conditions of the applicant has been passed and in such circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have suspended the said proceedings as it would amount to allowing the main O.A. itself. Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-applicant, on the other hand, submitted that the departmental authorities have conducted enquiry with regard to the very same allegations twice and the same were not proved. He further submitted that the ministerial staff having failed in their efforts, have approached the A.P. State Human Rights Commission by way of a petition and even though the Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the said petition, it entertained the same and passed order dated 19.10.2010 directing the 1st petitioner to conduct enquiry into the matter. Pursuant to which, the petitioners have issued the proceedings dated 24.2.2011, impugned in the O.A. discharging the 1st respondent unjustly of the full additional charge arrangements. We have gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal. Admittedly, by the impugned order, the Tribunal while allowing the O.A., has only suspended the proceedings of the petitioners 1 and 2 and it did not pass any final order affecting the rights of the parties. Though several contentions are sought to be raised by the learned Government Pleader for Services –I with regard to the merits of the matter, in view the fact that the main O.A. is pending consideration before the Tribunal, we are not inclined go into the same. Further, when once the matter is pending before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has not rendered any decision on the merits of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it would suffice if a direction is issued to the Tribunal to dispose of the main O.A. itself expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the main O.A., namely, O.A. No.1174 of 2011, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if the Tribunal deems that it would be just and proper to defer the contempt proceedings, it may do so. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 7.7.2011 _______________ K.G. SHANKAR,J pnb