HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.3193 of 2011 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the order, dated 13.12.2010, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.7770 of 2010, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation filed the present writ petition. The said O.A. was filed by the first respondent herein seeking to declare the proceedings dated 26.04.2010, through which respondents 2 and 3 herein were promoted, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to consider his case for promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officer. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. with a direction to the official respondents i.e., the petitioners herein to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of the Regional Transport Officer, without reference to the charge memo No.5400/V3/2007-4, dated 28.07.2009, for the panel year 2009-2010, and further directed them to take appropriate action within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The succinct facts of the case are that the first respondent was initially appointed as Typist and subsequently he was promoted as Senior Assistant and later as Administrative Officer. While so, on 23.07.2004, during the surprise check conducted by the Anti- Corruption Bureau, he was found in possession of excess cash of Rs.300/- under his chair, for which, he could not account for. As such, the charges were framed against him and that the Government issued memo directing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and pursuant thereto, he was served with the charge memo on 06.08.2009. Later, the delinquent employee approached the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs (a) to declare the impugned proceedings therein through which respondents 2 and 3 herein were promoted to the post of Regional Transport Officer; and (b) his non-promotion as illegal and arbitrary and (c) consequently, to direct the writ petitioners herein to promote him as Regional Transport Officer, with all consequential benefits, with effect from the date when respondents 2 and 3 were promoted i.e., from 26.04.2010. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. with the directions as referred to above. Now, it is the grievance of the writ petitioners that the Tribunal ought not to have directed them to consider the claim of the first respondent herein for promotion to the post of the Regional Transport Officer in view of the pendency of Anti-Corruption Bureau case against him and also in view of G.O.Ms.No.257, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 and Govt. Circular Memo No.15813/Ser.C/07, dated 11.09.2007. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the writ petitioners contended that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order; that when the charges of misconduct and corruption are framed against the delinquent employee and the charge memo is served on him, the Tribunal grossly erred in disposing of the said O.A. filed by the delinquent employee with certain directions to the writ petitioners and as such, prayed this Court to allow the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the charge memo, dated 28.07.2009, was served on the first respondent way back on 06.08.2009, but till now, the disciplinary proceedings are not initiated let alone the appointment of the enquiry officer to initiate the enquiry. This Court asked the learned Government Pleader for Services-II to inform about the stage of enquiry. Then, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II, on instructions, contended that subsequent to furnishing of the charge memo to the delinquent employee, the delinquent employee sought for certain documents from the ACB authorities and the same were furnished to him, but till now he has not chosen to file any explanation to the said charge memo and as such, the enquiry officer is not yet appointed in this case to enquire into the matter. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the writ petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the relevant material on record. It is admitted that the surprise check was conducted on 23.07.2007; that charge memo, dated 28.07.2009, was served on the delinquent employee on 06.08.2009 and subsequently, the delinquent employee approached the Tribunal by way of filing the said O.A., as against the promotion given to respondents 2 and 3 herein as Regional Transport Officers, denying the same to him. In the said O.A. the Tribunal directed the writ petitioners to consider the claim of the delinquent employee for promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officer without reference to the charge memo and further, directed the writ petitioners to take appropriate action within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It is pertinent to note that though the charge memo was issued to the delinquent employee, as regards the charges framed against him, way back in the year 2009, till now enquiry officer is not appointed i.e., in other words, appropriate steps are not taken by the writ petitioners to conduct enquiry into the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- (a) That the writ petitioners shall furnish the documents as sought for by the first respondent-delinquent employee; (b) On furnishing of the documents, the first respondent shall submit his explanation to the charge memo within a period of one week therefrom; (c) That the writ petitioners shall initiate, and complete the disciplinary proceedings and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the explanation from the first respondent. (d) That the writ petitioners, on completion of the enquiry, shall consider the case of the first respondent for promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officer, on par with his juniors i.e., respondents 2 and 3 herein, with effect from 24.06.2010; There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED ______________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR 07th July 2011 Note: Issue CC by 11.07.2011 B/o DR