IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2743 of 2007 Between: P.Krishnamacharyulu, s/o Pattabhi Ramacharyulu, r/o 21, Sharadanagar, Near Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Transmission Corpn., of A.P.Ltd., Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad represented byits Chairman and Managing Director. 2 the Joint Managing Director (HRD), The Transmission Corpn., of A.P.Ltd., Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 3 the Chief General Manager (HRD & Training) The Transmission Corpn., of A.P.Ltd., Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not closing the proceedings against the petitioner in view of the inordinate delay and not paying the full pension to the petitioner alongwith commutation of pension, gratuity and other allied terminal benefits as unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to pay terminal benefits and pension arrears with penal interest from the date due after declaring that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner are dropped and pass such order or orders as deem fit in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.SAMINENI KISHORE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is working as P.A./Stenographer to the Member, Accounts of the Transmission Corporation of the A.P.Limited, the first respondent herein. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge memo, in the year 1995. Several developments have taken place ever since then, such as the petitioner being placed under suspension, reinstated thereafter and also retired from service. His grievance is that though more than one decade has elapsed, the respondents have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings and in the process, the petitioner is put to serious hardship, be it in the context of earning promotions, or otherwise, and due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, his substantial retirement benefits are withheld. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings and not extending the terminal benefits, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It was in the year 1995 that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated, against the petitioner. For one reason or the other, they could not be concluded for the past more than one decade. The petitioner had retired from service, in the meanwhile. It is, no doubt, true that the respondents have sanctioned provisional pension under Rule 52 of the A.P.(Revised) Pension Rules, 1980. However, that is not a solace for the petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings cannot be kept pending, indefinitely. It is represented that all the necessary reports have been submitted recently and it would not take much time for concluding the proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, pending against the petitioner, within a period of six (6) weeks from today. In default, they shall be under obligation to extend all the terminal benefits to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.01.05.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}