IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH 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 : 19452 of 2008 Between: 1 The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Local Fund & Audit, Abids, A.P., Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND Shaik Miran, O/o. Commissioner for Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, A.P., Hyderabad, R/o. 18-12- 418/D/14/A, Beside Omer Hotel, 3line, Kanchanbagh, Hafez Baba Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT. 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of " Writ of Certiorari " calling for the records relating to the orders of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No. 2688/2007 dated 13.03.2008 as being erroneous, illegal, and unreasonable. Counsel for the Petitioners:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared. The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) Aggrieved by the order, dated 13.03.2008, passed in O.A.No.2688 of 2008 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioners herein are the oﬃcial respondents, and the respondent herein is the applicant in O.A.No.2688 of 2007, seeking to quash G.O.Rt.Nos.385 and 386, dated 16.03.2007 insofar as the applicant is concerned. The brief facts of the case are that while the applicant was working as Attender in the oﬃce of the ﬁrst and second respondents, a charge-memo was issued to him for colluding/conspiring with Sri Rajasekhara Reddy, Superintendent, alleging issuance of fake promotion orders. Thereafter, he submitted an explanation on 16.12.2000 denying the charge. An Enquiry Oﬃcer was appointed on 05.05.2001 to enquire into the charge framed against the applicant, but as he could not conduct any enquiry due to his transfer, the case was referred to ACB. After enquiry, ACB furnished its report stating that there is no involvement of the applicant in issuance of fake promotion orders and the matter was referred to the Government. While so, the applicant had retired from service in the year 2003 on attaining the age of superannuation, and pending the charge, his pension and retiral beneﬁts have not been settled. So, he ﬁled O.A.No.1371 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the same was disposed of, on 28.09.2006, directing the oﬃcial respondents to ﬁnalise the disciplinary proceedings pending against the applicant, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Since the said disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded within time, he made a representation to the respondents on 06.02.2007 for release of pensionary beneﬁts, for which the respondents have issued G.O.Rt.No.385, dated 16.03.2007 appointing a fresh Enquiry Oﬃcer against the applicant and others, without concluding the earlier disciplinary proceedings. Hence, he ﬁled the present O.A., challenging the said G.O., and the same was allowed on 13.03.2008 setting aside the said G.O. and directing the respondents to release all retiral benefits, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of that order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is ﬁled by the oﬃcial respondents. Learned Government Pleader for services-II appearing for the petitioners-oﬃcial respondents contended that the proceedings before the ACB are of criminal nature and they stand on a diﬀerent footing and it is always open to the department to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the applicant as it relates to the misconduct of the delinquent officer. Having regard to the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and on perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the ACB after conducting enquiry submitted its report to the eﬀect that there is no involvement of the petitioner in issuance of fake promotion orders and though the Tribunal had directed in O.A.No.1371 of 2007 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the prescribed period, the oﬃcial respondents have not taken any action in the matter. When the applicant had submitted the representation dated 06.02.2007 for release of pensionary beneﬁts, the respondents have issued G.O.Rt.No.385 dated 16.03.2007 appointing a fresh Enquiry Oﬃcer without concluding the disciplinary proceedings as directed by the Tribunal earlier. In fact, the said G.O.Rt.No.385 dated 16.3.2007 was set aside by the Tribunal by allowing O.A.No.2688 of 2007 vide its order dated 13.03.2008. Having regard to the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1999 and the authorities did not conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the time stipulated by the Tribunal, and that the applicant had retired from service on 30.6.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation, we are of the considered view that the continuance of disciplinary proceedings would cause prejudice to the applicant. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, the time granted by the Tribunal for release of all retiral beneﬁts is extended by six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ___________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:08.09.2008 sj