IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 836 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of A.P. rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue (Vig.VI) Dept. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Secretary, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad. .....PETITIONERS AND D.Prasanth Kumar, Registration and Stamps Dept. Kurnool, Kurnool District. .....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 Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.7716 of 2005 dated 11.04.2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent : MR.C.SRINIVASA BABA The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRIAH W.P. No. 836 of 2008 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 11.4.2007 in O.A. No. 7716 of 2005 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The applicant - respondent herein filed O.A. No. 7716 of 2005 before the Tribunal seeking to set aside the charge memo in T.E.C. No. 95 of 2004 dated 17.10.2005 issued by the 3rd petitioner herein, which was said to have been communicated to the applicant on 18.11.2005, and also G.O.Rt. No. 2000 Revenue (Regn.I) Department dated 11.12.1998 issued by the 1st petitioner herein as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules. The Tribunal allowed the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein. Hence this writ petition by the petitioners, namely, the Government of A.P. represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Regn.I) Department and others. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The contention of the learned Government Pleader for Services-II is that in view of the fact that the ACB enquiry was pending before the ACB authorities the petitioners could not proceed with regard to the enquiry basing on the charge memo dated 11.12.1998 and the matter was rightly referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, but the Tribunal has not considered this aspect and erroneously allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent – applicant and the same is liable to be set aside. However, a perusal of the material available on record clearly discloses that a charge memo was issued against the respondent – applicant vide proceedings in G.O.RT. No. 2000 dated 11.12.1998 and the respondent submitted his explanation to the same and no further action was taken by the authorities thereafter. Subsequently and much later, the respondent – applicant received a charge memo from the 3rd petitioner herein vide TEC. No. 95 of 2005 dated 17.10.2005 repeating the same charges which were issued in 1998. Under these circumstances, the law is well settled that the second disciplinary proceeding pertaining to the charges which formed the subject matter of the first disciplinary proceeding is impermissible and if a disciplinary proceeding is commenced with respect to an accusation and that disciplinary proceeding has reached the stage when an enquiry has been completed, that disciplinary proceeding must be continued and must end either in the imposition of a punishment or in exoneration and if the said disciplinary proceeding has not been terminated in that way, the commencement of another disciplinary proceedings with respect to those charges is plainly incompetent (Sri C.D. Prabhu v. The Deputy Commissioner South Kanara District Bangalore and another[1]). Having regard to the well-settled legal proposition, the Tribunal rightly held that when the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated under the CCA Rules, 1991, the same should have been concluded under the same rules. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the petitioners have not given any plausible explanation as to the source of power to proceed before the T.D.P. once again when the charge memo has been issued under the CCA Rules. Further, having considered the inordinate delay of 12 years in concluding the disciplinary proceedings without any proper explanation, the Tribunal rightly set aside the impugned proceedings therein. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we see no error or legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. G. CHANDRAIAH, J. Date: 10-03-2008. MVB. [1] 1969 SLR 362