IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.7898 of 2010 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government and another .. Petitioners AND Mohd. Raheemuddin, Deputy Inspector General Of Registration and sTamps (Incharge) and another .. Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the legality and validity of the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 12-06-2009 in O.A.No.4555 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the O.A. was allowed setting aside the order dated 06-07-2002, holding the same to be non-est in law and further directing to pass orders extending the consequential benefits to the applicant therein, the present writ petition has been filed by the Government. The factual background leading to filing the present writ petition is that the 1st respondent herein worked as in charge Deputy Inspector General or Registration and Stamps and he retired from service on 31-07-2001. Prior to his retirement, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1219 dated 11-07-1997 keeping the 1st respondent herein under suspension on certain allegations. The 1st respondent filed O.A.No.4405 of 1997 before the Tribunal challenging the suspension and the Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. on 12-08-1998. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent filed W.P.No.34024 of 1998, at which time the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.2108 dated 26-12-1998 framing charges against the 1st respondent and that writ petition was disposed of on 15-02-1999 directing the 1st petitioner herein to conclude the disciplinary enquiry against the 1st respondent herein within a period of four months from the date of receipt of communication of the order. After conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 19-06-1999 and no orders were passed on the basis of such report. Though the 1st respondent retired from service, he was not paid pension and other pensionary benefits regulating the period of suspension as “on duty”. The 1st respondent filed O.A.No.8203 of 2001 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal disposed of the same on 12-11-2001, directing the respondents therein to conclude the enquiry against the applicant therein within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order, in default of which the disciplinary action shall stand abated, with all consequential benefits including the regularization of the suspension period as “on duty” and other consequential benefits flowing therefrom. Time for passing final orders was extended from time to time and ultimately till 28-05- 2003 with a condition that even if the final orders were not passed before 28-05-2003, it shall be treated that the enquiry stood abated. Subsequent thereto, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.665, dated 07-06-2003 imposing punishment of 25% cut in the pension permanently. Challenging the said G.O., the 1st respondent herein filed O.A.No.4555 of 2003 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the O.A. setting aside the impugned G.O. by treating the impugned G.O. as non-est in law and further directing to pass orders extending the consequential benefits to the 1st respondent herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II vehemently contended that though final decision was already taken on 24-03- 2003 well before within the timeframe fixed by this Court, it is only for receiving the concurrence by A.P.P.S.C. for imposition of the punishment. Further, the 1st respondent herein also is partly responsible for the delay as he refused to appear before the enquiry officer, and hence, the impugned order needs to be interfered with. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent vehemently contended that even though the Government was granted time from time to time, no orders were passed within the timeframe fixed by this Court and hence, violated the orders of this Court and therefore, the impugned order warrants no interference. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order needs any interference by this Court? The perusal of the material on record disclosed that in W.P.No.34024 of 1998, this Court, while dismissing the writ petition, directed the 1st respondent therein (1st petitioner herein) to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner therein (1st respondent herein) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order with default condition of revocation of the order of suspension against the petitioner therein in the event of non-compliance of such order. In response to the said direction, an enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted his report to the higher authorities way back in 1999, but the authorities kept silence without responding to the said report. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Further, in W.P.No.263 of 2003 filed by the Government against the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.8203 of 2001 filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking a direction to the respondents therein to treat the period of suspension from 11.07.1997 to 24-10-1999 as on duty with all consequential benefits, this Court extended the period for finalizing the departmental proceedings till 28-02-2003 with conditional order of implementation of the order of the Tribunal in the event of not taking any final decision. It is represented by the learned Government Pleader for Services-II that though the Government decided to impose a punishment of withholding of 25% pension of the 1st respondent herein, it was only due to the concurrence of the A.P. Public Service Commission on the proposed imposition. It is also evident that in W.P.M.P.No.8255 of 2003, time was extended up to 28-05-2003 finally for completing the enquiry. Despite extending the time finally till 28-05-2003, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.665, dated 7-6-2003 imposing punishment of withholding of 25% pension permanently. Under what circumstances, the delay was occurred is incomprehensible and more over, when once the timeframe fixed by the Court, the Government could have taken the decision well before within that timeframe, which did not obviously do so. Under the circumstances stated, in spite of extending time for completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the Government did not do so within the timeframe fixed by this Court, which appears to be violation of the orders of this Court. Therefore, as the Government did not act upon the directions of this Court in concluding the disciplinary proceedings within the timeframe fixed by the Court, more so, in the light of the fact that the excess amount, which was alleged to have been drawn by the 1st respondent by producing inflated pay bills, has already been recovered from him, he cannot be penalized again only due to the laches on the part of the Government in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for interference of this Court in exercise of restricted judicial review. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 15-04-2010 Ksn