THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION NO.13284 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services I on behalf of the petitioners and Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for the contesting respondent. At their request, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the time when the interlocutory application for vacating stay came up for consideration. The petitioners filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 02.12.2008 in O.A.No.2870 of 2005 with M.A.No.2836 of 2006 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad {“the Tribunal” for brevity}, in allowing the said application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, directing the petitioners to release the encashment of Earned Leave forthwith to the credit of the applicant by suspending the operation of Proc.Rc.No.22800/2004/A3, dated 15.09.2005 issued by the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. Briefly stated, the facts, which are not in dispute, are that the respondent-applicant is a retired Municipal Commissioner Grade III. A charge memo relating to certain irregularities of the years 1995-1999 was issued on 15.09.2003. Meanwhile, the respondent retired on 31.10.2004. Since no progress was shown, he approached the Tribunal. Following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D.T.N.Housing Board Mahadevan[1], where such pendency of proceedings for a long time held to be very bad, the Tribunal ultimately quashed the proceedings and directed to release the pensionary benefits to the applicant forthwith. Hence, the Writ Petition. There is no dispute about the aforesaid facts and also the well established principles. Further, there is no justification of whatsoever nature in keeping the entire proceedings pending and the allusion that, necessarily the employee has to face the same and invite the result under the regular enquiry and the same cannot be postponed forever and ever. The respondent-applicant was retired on 31.10.2004 and the question as to whether such proceedings can be continued thereafter also may arise. We are in the entire agreement with the reasoning given by the Tribunal following the principles laid down by the Apex Court and hence, there are no merits in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 8th September 2010 RRB [1] 2005 (5) Supreme 611