IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2475 of 2008 Between: 1 The Commissioner and director of Handlooms and Textiles and Development Commissioner Appearal Export Parks, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The State of AP Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government Industries, and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND K. Vidyasagar, Asst. Development Officer (under orders of dismissal) office of the Asst. Director, (H&T) Karinagar. .....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 an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" call for the records relating to and connected with order dt. 25-1-2007 in OA No. 2949 of 2006, on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and to quash or set aside same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO The Court made the following : ORDER : (Per Sri P.Swaroop Reddy, J.) This writ petition is filed by the respondents-Government against the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2949 of 2006, dated 25.1.2007, which was filed by the respondent herein aggrieved by the proceedings in Rc.No.3845/2001-E3, dated 15.3.2005, under which he was dismissed from service and for direction to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits. The case of the respondent is that he was appointed as Assistant Development Officer (Handlooms and Textiles) on 26.6.1996 and a charge memo dated 27.9.2001 was issued framing six charges. As the said charges were proved, the 1st petitioner issued a notice dated 16.9.2003 calling for the explanation of the respondent on the enquiry report and before issuing the said notice the advice of the A.P. Vigilance Commission was obtained. The respondent submitted a detailed representation on 3.1.2004 bringing to the notice about the procedural irregularities committed by the enquiry officer. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the respondent, the 1st petitioner issued the impugned proceedings dated 15.3.2005 basing on the orders of the Government issued in Memo No.9996/Vig/A2/2003-3, dated 9.3.2005, and also the advice of the Vigilance Commission, dismissing the applicant/respondent from service. The respondent filed an appeal on 24.4.2005, which was not disposed of till the date of filing of the O.A. The main grievance of the respondent is that the disciplinary authority without application of mind issued the impugned order on the instructions of the Government. The Tribunal having observed that the impugned orders have been passed at the behest of the Government issued vide memo dated 9.3.2005 and the disciplinary authority has committed a jurisdictional error in passing such orders by abdicating its powers in favour of the Government set aside the impugned proceedings and consequential proceedings, however, observed that the 1st petitioner is at liberty to pass appropriate orders by taking independent decision. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal in the said O.A.No.2949 of 2006. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition confirming the direction given by the Tribunal for reconsideration of the matter and to take independent decision. However, we make it clear that any fresh order passed shall be effective from the date of original order. Until the passing of final orders, the respondent shall continue to be under suspension. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 23.6.2009 kpr