IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7943 of 2009 Between: D. Umamaheswararao S/o. Late Suryanarayana ERO, Anakapalli, EPDC of A.P. Ltd., R/o. 53-22-12/1, Chaitanyanagar, Visakhapatnam-13. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Near Saraswathi Park, Visakhapatnam-530 020. 2 Chief General Manager (Expenditure) cum Enquiry Officer, APEPDCL, Near Saraswathi Park, Visakhapatnam-530 020. 3 Superintending Engineer, Operation , APEPDCL, Opp. Green Park Hotel, Visakhapatnam-530 020. 4 Asst. Accounts Officer, ERO, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. P.V.L.BHANU PRAKASH FOR DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents:MR. G.NAGABHUSHANA REDDY FOR MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in finalizing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner despite order, dated 14.09.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.14354 of 2005, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is facing departmental enquiry. Certain charges were framed against him as far back as 05.02.2003. Though he tried to stall the said proceedings at one stage by filing Writ Petition No.14354 of 2005, eventually, the said writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 14.09.2007, in which, this Court permitted the petitioner to submit his objections to the enquiry report received by him and the respondents to consider the said explanation and pass appropriate orders. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he filed objections to the enquiry report on 05.10.2007 and made representations, dated 05.04.2008, 22.11.2008 and 20.03.2009 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents have not finalized the same. Inasmuch as it is incumbent upon the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings having initiated the same, I do not find any justification to keep the proceedings pending. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3, who is stated to be the disciplinary authority, to conclude the disciplinary proceedings and pass a final order, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.10415 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th APRIL, 2009. kvni