( 1 ) THE petitioner was selected by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and joined service of the State of Andhra Pradesh as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the year 1962. On 1-11-1977 the Andhra Pradesh State Meat and Poultry Development Corporation Limited (R1) was formed. The said Corporation is admittedly a company registered under Companies Act and it is a Government Company as per Section 617 of the Companies Act. It appears that when the above-mentioned respondent-Corporation was created some of the employees working with the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the Veterinary Department were given option to join service of the first respondent-Corporation under G. O. Ms. No. 400, dated 2-6-1978. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner gave an unconditional option to be absorbed into service of the first respondent-Company with effect from 2-6-1978. The petitioner ceased to be an employee of the State of Andhra Pradesh and became an employee of the Corporation. Thereafter, the petitioner had work in the Corporation in various capacities as Zonal Manager, subsequently, Regional Manager and he retired as Regional Manager on 30-6-1994.

( 2 ) IT appears that in the year 1980 there were certain irregularities regarding extension of credits to the farmers by the first respondent-Corporation. The petitioner and Mr. B. Srirama Rao are alleged to be responsible of the extension of the said irregular credit. What exactly is the irregularity in extending the said credit is not the subject-matter of this writ petition. On the allegation of extending irregular credits a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 24-12-1981 and Mr. Srirama Rao on l-3-1985 respectively. It appears thereafter an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted a report that the loss arising out of the extension of irregular credits to the farmers should be borne by the petitioner and the above-mentioned Mr. Srirama Rao equally. Questioning the said decision it appears the petitioner and Mr. Srirama Rao filed the Writ Petitions 11193 of 1986 and 12175 of 1986 respectively. It appears that both the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 23-1-1989 by which order this court quashed the above decision with a direction to conduct a de novo enquiry in the matter, as this Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not given a reasonable opportunity to meet the case against them. It is also pertinent to mention that this Court while disposing of the said writ petitions directed "the enquiry be completed within three months from the date of this order. "

( 3 ) HOWEVER, the enquiry was not completed within the stipulated time. The counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent-Corporation does not disclose clearly, the reasons as to why the enquiry was not completed within the stipulated time except making a vague statement which reads:"i state that the enquiry could not be completed within the stipulated period since the relevant records were in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in connection with the suits filed by poultry marketing centre, Vizag for recovery of dues. "

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner retired on 30-6-1994 on reaching the age of superannuation. However, the pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment and arrears of salary of the petitioner were withheld by the first respondent-Corporation. Questioning the withholding of the above-mentioned amounts on the ground that an enquiry is pending against the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition originally with a prayer as follows: ". . . . . . to issue appropriate writ, declaring the continuance of disciplinary proceedings beyond 30-6-1994 against the petitioner as void, without jurisdiction, mala fide, unconstitutional and issue a consequential direction to forthwith settle the terminal benefits of pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment, arrears of salary etc. , and grant suc