IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5515 of 2008 Between: J.Mohan Reddy S/o.Late Sri Singa Reddy Itukulapadu Branch R/o.D.No.7/436-2B,NGO colony,Kadapa ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra pragathi Grameena Bank,. rep.by its Chairman head office, Kadapa-516001 2 The Regional office, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank Kurnool .....RESPONDENTS 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 any writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondents in promoting the petitioner to the post of Scale-II officer in the Respondent Bank as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the established procedure of law violative of ARt.14 of the Constitution of India and judgments of the Apex courts and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Scale -II officer cadre in the Respondent Bank with all attendant and consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was functioning as Scale-I Officer by 1997. Vide orders, dated 05.06.1997, he was placed under suspension and the same continued for a decade till 03.04.2007, on account of the pendency of criminal cases against him. In the meanwhile, his case was considered for promotion to the post of Scale-II Officer and the same was kept in abeyance, on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him. The grievance of the petitioner is that, even after reinstatement and his acquittal in the criminal cases, he is not being promoted. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that though the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal cases, disciplinary proceedings initiated through two more charge sheets, being Nos.28 and 29 of 1994, are pending, and in that view of the matter, the case of the petitioner could not be considered. Heard Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Sreenivasa Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner was reinstated on 03.04.2007, after he was acquitted in the criminal cases and in the meanwhile, his case was considered for promotion in the year 1998 itself, but could not be given effect to. In case, there are no other proceedings pending against the petitioner, there would not be any difficulty for the respondents in considering the case of the petitioner for the promotion to fix higher post, in accordance with the relevant rules. The record, however, discloses that the disciplinary proceedings, referable to charge sheet Nos.28 and 29 of 1994, are still pending. It was only on 29.08.2007 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The matter cannot be kept pending any further. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to conclude the proceedings, in relation to charge sheet Nos.28 and 29 of 1994, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to higher post, depending upon the out come of the disciplinary proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.25.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}