WP/27077/2006 of V. Kamaleswara Rao, Vs The Commissioner AND Director, Handlooms and Textiles- on 29 December 2006

: O R D E R :

Counsel for the petitioner : Shri V. Madhusudhan Rao Per G.S.SINGHVI, C.J.

Having failed to persuade the Andhra Pradesh AdministrativeTribunal at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) to stay the proceedingsof the departmental enquiry initiated against him vide charge sheetdated 01-09-2005 and issue an interim mandatory direction for hispromotion to the post of Assistant Director, Industries and CommerceDepartment, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India.

The petitioner is presently holding the post of DevelopmentOfficer (Handlooms and Textiles), Warangal. While he was working asAssistant Development Officer, the petitioner was placed undersuspension vide proceedings dated 9-5-1985 on the ground of hisalleged involvement in leakage of Group-IV examination papers ofAndhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. After five years, he wasreinstated vide G.O.Ms.No.284, dated 3-5-1990 and was promoted asDevelopment Officer (Handlooms and Textiles) on ad hoc basis. In the meanwhile, he was prosecuted in Criminal CaseNo.28 of 1985 and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one yearby Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, vide judgment dated 27-11-2000. As a sequel to this, he was dismissed from service vide orderdated 4-12-2001. Criminal Appeal No.598 of 2000 preferred by thepetitioner was dismissed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, buthe was acquitted by the High Court in Criminal Revision CaseNo.1419 of 2001. He then filed O.A.No.746 of 2004 for quashing theorder of dismissal. The same was allowed by the Tribunal vide itsorder dated 16-4-2004. The Tribunal also directed the Commissionerand Director of Handlooms and Textiles Development (hereinafterreferred to as ‘the Commissioner’) to examine the petitioner’s case forregularisation of service and counting of the total period of service for the purpose of seniority and increments. In compliance of the directiongiven by the Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated31-7-2004, but no order was passed for regularisation of the period ofsuspension and restoration of seniority despite his representationdated 11-8-2004. He then filed O.A.Nos.446 and 6011 of 2005. Thesame were disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 8-2-2006. Paragraph 13 of that order reads as under:

“13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,the 1[st] respondent is directed to examine the case of theapplicant if no departmental proceedings have been initiated forregularising the period of suspension and for increments inaccordance with rules. After passing the orders as directedabove, case of the applicant shall be considered for promotionin accordance with the rules and as per the directions of theTribunal in O.A.No.746/2004 dated 16-4-2004. Any orders passed in this regard will be subject tothe outcome of the SLP which is said to be pending before theHon’ble Supreme Court. The above exercise shall becompleted by the respondents within a period of 8 weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order. The O.A.446/2005 isaccordingly disposed of. VMAs also stand disposed of.”

In the meanwhile, the Commissioner issued proceedings dated1-9-2005 for holding an enquiry against the petitioner under theAndhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1991.

After the decision of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.446 and 6011 of2005, the Commissioner passed order dated 21-9-2006, whereby herejected the petitioner’s claim for regularisation of the period ofsuspension and promotion to the post of Assistant Director on thepremise that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against him.

The petitioner questioned the rejection of his claim forpromotion in O.A.No.6659 of 2006. He also filed an application forinterim relief. The Tribunal admitted the application, but declinedinterim relief by observing that during the pendency of the enquiry, thepetitioner can neither be considered for promotion nor the period of suspension can be regularised.

Sri V.Madhusudan Rao vehemently argued that in view of thepetitioner’s acquittal by the High Court in Criminal Revision CaseNo.1419 of 2001, the decision of the Commissioner to initiate departmental enquiry is liable to be declared nullity and the petitioneris entitled to have his service regularised as a matter of right. He thenargued that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as AssistantDirector on the basis of his seniority and the Tribunal committed aserious error by declining to direct the Commissioner to promote him.

We have given serious thought to the arguments of the learnedcounsel, but have not felt persuaded to agree with him. Since theoriginal application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of theAdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 questioning the proceedings ofdepartmental enquiry instituted against him on September 1, 2005 ispending before the Tribunal, we do not consider it proper to expressany opinion on the merits of the charges levelled against thepetitioner. Suffice it to say that till the Tribunal or any other competentadjudicatory forum nullifies the proceedings of departmental enquiry,the petitioner cannot claim promotion to the higher post as of right. Ifhe is considered suitable by the departmental selection committee, therecommendation qua the petitioner will have to be kept in a sealedcover in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Government,which is in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court i n Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman[[1]]. This being the legalposition, we are unable to find any fault with the Tribunal’s refusal topass an interim direction for regularisation of the petitioner’s period ofsuspension and for his promotion to the next higher post.

It is neither the pleaded case of the petitioner nor his counselhas argued that the order of the Tribunal is vitiated due to lack ofjurisdiction or any other patent legal infirmity. Therefore, we do not findany valid ground or justification to interfere with the discretionexercised by the Tribunal not to entertain the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief. In any case, neither the Tribunal could, nor this Courtwill be justified in issuing a mandatory interim direction to therespondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Director, Industriesand Commerce Department even before finalisation of thedepartmental proceedings.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP No.34804 of2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed.

G.S. SINGHVI, C.J.

December 29, 2006

C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.

ks

[1]AIR 1991 SC 2010