M. E. N. PATRUDU, J, J.

( 1 ) PRAYER the petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal of the State, (hereinafter referred as tribunal ) in O. A. No. 4461 of 2003, dated 28. 1. 2005. Impugned order

( 2 ) TO consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of superintendent without reference to the charge memo, with all consequential benefits. Facts

( 3 ) THE facts to the extent necessary are:

( 4 ) THE Principal Chief Conservator of forests, Andhra Pradesh the petitioner herein is the respondent in the O. A.

( 5 ) MR. T. Bhaskar Rao, a Senior assistant in the Forest Range Office of adilabad, the respondent herein is the applicant in the O. A.

( 6 ) THE petitioner vide Rc. No. 21904/ 2002/p1, dated 20. 11. 2002 issued a charge memo to the respondent and placed him under suspension on an allegation that the respondent was negligent in making entries in the cash register without proper scrutiny.

( 7 ) THE respondent submitted his explanation on 31. 12. 2002.

( 8 ) THEREAFTER, the suspension of the respondent was revoked and was reinstated to duty without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings which were already initiated against him.

( 9 ) THE respondent challenged the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that they are contrary to the Rule-20 of A. P. C. S (CCA) Rules (hereinafter referred as rules ) in O. A. No. 2338/2003.

( 10 ) THE Tribunal quashed the charge memo on the ground that the same was issued by an independent authority however by observing that the competent authority is at liberty to take such disciplinary action as it deems fit. The said order of the Tribunal is dated 28. 4. 2003.

( 11 ) WHILE so, the respondent again approached the Tribunal through the present o. A. and obtained an interim order dated 9. 7. 2003 to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of superintendent in the existing vacancies, provided if there is no charge memo issued or pending against the applicant.

( 12 ) TILL the issuance of said interim orders neither the petitioner nor the State has chosen to initiate any disciplinary action against the respondent after disposal of O. A. No. 2338 of 2003 despite of clear observation of the Tribunal.

( 13 ) HOWEVER soon after the interim orders the Conservator of Forests, Adilabad issued a charge memo in Rc. No. 4816/2002/mia, dated 18. 7. 2003.

( 14 ) THE respondent was on leave from 18. 7. 2003 to 21. 7. 2003. The memo was pasted on the door of the residence of the respondent on 21. 7. 2003 stating that the door is locked. Thereafter, it was served in person on the respondent on 24. 7. 2003.

( 15 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner had considered the promotions on 23. 7. 2003 and the case of the respondent was not considered on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against him.

( 16 ) THE respondent has questioned the same.

( 17 ) THE Tribunal pronounced the impugned order in favour of the respondent and the same is now under challenge before us. Arguments

( 18 ) HEARD the learned Government pleader appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

( 19 ) THE main grievance ventilated by the Government Pleader is that the Tribunal has erred in directing the petitioner to consider the promotion of the respondent when the disciplinary proceedings are initiated long back.

( 20 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has highlighted certain important facts and mainly focused his arguments on Rule 42 of the rules.

( 21 ) THE Counsel from both sides cited a decision each delivered by the Hon ble apex Court of the country. Decision

( 22 ) THE two important points for our determination are: 1. Whether the notice of the proposed disciplinary action is served on the respondent as per rules? 2. Whether the candidature of the respondent is to be considered for promotion pending domestic enquiry ? service of Notice:

( 23 ) THE State has framed a specific rule for this purp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document