HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. No. 31074 of 2011 DATED: 07.12.2011 Between: P.S. Ram Babu .. Petitioner And Deputy Commissioner and four others .. Respondents O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This writ petition is not directed against any order of the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal nor an implied refusal to grant an order by the said Tribunal. The petitioner is aggrieved that the respondents have not considered his case for promotion as Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector despite several orders of the Tribunal in this regard. The brief matrix of facts relevant and material for consideration of this writ petition is that; On 15.05.2001, the petitioner was appointed In-charge Prohibition & Excise Sub–Inspector from his substantive post of Head Constable. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings pursuant to a Charge Memo dated 28.01.2008. An enquiry officer was appointed and during the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 9260 of 2011 seeking consideration for temporary promotion as Excise Sub-Inspector, apprehending that his case for consideration as temporary Excise Sub-Inspector would not be considered on account of the pending disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal, by order dated 31.12.2010 in this O.A., granted an interim direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for temporary appointment as Excise Sub- Inspector without reference to pending disciplinary proceedings. On 11.02.2011, the petitioner was imposed with a major penalty of stoppage of three Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect. On 09.03.2011, the 1st respondent herein rejected the petitioner’s request for temporary promotion as per the directions issued by the Tribunal on 31.12.2010 on the ground that a major penalty was already imposed. By way of O.A. No. 2539 of 2011, the petitioner assailed the penalty order dated 11.02.2011 imposing on him the penalty of stoppage of three increment with cumulative effect and in O.A. No. 2540 of 2011, he challenged the order dated 09.03.2011 issued by the 1st respondent herein rejecting his request for temporary promotion as Excise Sub-Inspector. On 26.04.2011, the Tribunal suspended the order dated 11.02.2011, in O.A. No. 2539 of 2011 and by another order dated 26.04.2011 suspended the proceedings dated 09.03.2011 whereby the petitioner’s request for temporary promotion as Excise Sub-Inspector was rejected. Aggrieved that despite the penal order as well as the order of the 1st respondent herein rejecting consideration of his case for temporary promotion as Excise Sub-Inspector having been suspended by the Tribunal, the respondents are not considering his case for temporary promotion as Excise Sub-Inspector, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking appropriate relief. It requires to be noticed that the Tribunal is constituted pursuant to the legislative policy delineated in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 17 of the 1985 Act consecrates on the Tribunal the same jurisdiction, powers and authority of contempt under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as applicable to the High Court. Since a statutorily enjoined, effective and alternative facility is available under the legislative dispensation of Section 17 of the 1985 Act by way of the power of contempt which is a well-recognized instrument for execution of curial orders as well; and in view of the law declared in L.Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India[1], this Court is not inclined to exercise the power of Contempt specifically conferred on the Tribunal, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While this writ petition is no doubt couched as seeking the relief of mandamus, it is clearly and essentially an application seeking the exercise of the very same powers specifically and unambiguously consecrated in the Tribunal under Section 17 of the 1985 Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies as available under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. No costs. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 07.12.2011 __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J bcj [1] AIR 1997 SC 1125