Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, these three Writ Petitions are disposed of directing
Judgment
orders and since the parties in these three writ petitions, except the first respondents, are one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal by a common order. W.P.No.6158 of 2010 is filed seeking to quash the order dated
10.09.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.No.3329 of 2009 in O.A.No.7867 of 2008. W.P.No.6199 of 2010 is filed seeking to quash the order dated
23.10.2009 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.No.3834 of 2009 in O.A.No.10299 of 2008. W.P.No.6200 of 2010 is filed seeking to quash the order dated
10.09.2009 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.No.3332 of 2009 in O.A.No.10290 of 2008. First respondents in these three writ petitions joined in Government service on 15.03.1994, 11.03.1994 and 18.04.1994 respectively and worked as the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors, Purushothapuram, Itchapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District,
Operative part
04.02.2005 to 17.10.2006. A sudden check by the Joint Transport Commissioner (IT) on 10.05.2008, revealed that the first respondents availed services of private parties for writing check reports on their behalf. Accordingly, charge memos dated 30.05.2008 were issued against them and the first respondents submitted explanations. After examination of the explanations, the Joint Transport Commissioner (V&E), appointed Enquiry Officer on 07.03.2009. Since the enquiry was in progress, the first respondents were not given promotion. Therefore, they filed their respective O.As. for declaration that they are entitled for promotion without reference to the charges levelled against them. During the pendency of the O.As., the Tribunal, by impugned orders, directed the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondents for promotion to the post of the Motor Vehicles Inspector the existing vacancies when the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is going to be constituted. The case of the petitioners is that as per decision of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.V. Janakiraman[1], promotion can be withheld for selection posts if the charge memos are issued and the case is pending in a Court of law prior to the meeting of the DPC and therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The case of the first respondents is that the as per the rules of the Government issued in various Government Orders – G.O.Ms.No.529 dated 19.08.2008 read with Circular memo dated11.09.2007, they are entitled for promotion pending disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly considered their case and passed impugned orders. In view of the facts and circumstances of these cases, it is seen that the orders impugned amounts to allowing the O.As. itself and thus, they shall not be given effect to. Therefore, without going into the merits of the cases, it would suffice to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the O.As. expeditiously. Accordingly, these three Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the Tribunal to dispose of O.A.Nos.7867, 10290 and 10299 of 2008, after giving opportunity to all the parties concerned, within a period of four weeks from today, in accordance with law. Till such disposal, the orders of the impugned in these three Writ Petitions i.e., order dated
10.09.2009 in M.A.No.3329 of 2009 in O.A.No.7867 of 2008, order dated 23.10.2009 in M.A.No.3834 of 2009 in O.A.No.10299 of 2008 of 2008 and order dated 10.09.2009 in M.A.No.3332 of 2009 in O.A.No.10290 of 2008 shall not be given effect to. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 19th March, 2010 GHN [1] AIR 1991 SC 2010
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.