Ghulam Mohammed, J.

This writ petition is filed assailing the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) passed in O.A. No.6083 of 2009, dated 19-10-2009, as being perverse and contrary to law and praying to quash the same.

2. It is stated that the respondent herein while working as Mandal Revenue Officer and Deputy Collector, Serilingampally issued mutation orders dated 14-11-2005 in favour of one L. Jaya Reddy in respect of Ac.0-36 guntas in survey No.22 of Gachibowli village without proper verification, and simply relying on the survey report of the Inspector of Survey concerned and the note circulated by his subordinate staff to the effect that the land is a vacant land, which is contrary to his own report submitted to this Court wherein the status of the land in question was described as ‘plots’, which is against the provisions of the Records of Rights Act, 1971. Consequently, departmental proceedings were initiated against him and article of charge was issued to him in G.O. Rt. No.934 Revenue (Vigilance-III) Department, dated 23-04-2008. As the disciplinary proceedings were pending, his promotion to the post of Special Grade Deputy Collector for the panel year 2008-09 was deferred vide G.O. Ms. No.1265 Revenue (Services-I) Department, dated 01-11-2008. While so, he filed O.A. No.6083 of 2009 to consider his case for promotion as Special Grade Deputy Collector without reference to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. The Tribunal by its order dated 19-10-2009 allowed the said O.A. Assailing the order of the Tribunal, the Government filed this writ petition contending that promotion can be denied/deferred if charge memo/charge sheet has already been issued to a delinquent, which stand was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, dated 30-10-2009 in W.P. Nos.19913 and 21739 of 2009 (State of

A.P. and another v. A. Ramulu (2010 (1) ALD 144 (DB)) and therefore, the case of the respondent cannot be considered for promotion till finalization of the disciplinary proceedings pending against him and hence, the writ petition seeking reversal of the orders of the Tribunal by way of Certiorari.

3. The respondent in his counter-affidavit stated that his entire service right from Deputy Tahsildar to Deputy Collector was blemishless and he was rewarded with best MRO awards for four times. When he was eligible for promotion to the post of Special Grade Deputy Collector, the article of charge was issued for the alleged misconduct, which relates back to three years with a view to deprive him of the promotion. The mutation orders issued by him were confirmed by the statutory appellate authority, which order was relied by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and the High Court in respective proceedings. He contended that issuing article of charge after lapse of three years in respect of a quasi-judicial order and keeping the disciplinary proceedings under cold storage for one and half years even after submission of explanation on 02-06-2008, without rendering any explanation for the delay, is unjust and against the policy issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.679 G.A. (Ser.C) Department, dated 01-11-2008, Circular Memo No.35676/Ser.C/98 GAD, dated 01-07-1998 and Memo No.23537/Ser.C/99-5GAD, dated 28-07-1997, whereunder the disciplinary authorities are directed to conclude departmental enquiries within three months in simple cases and within six months in complicated cases. The various Government Orders referred to in the writ petition are not relevant to decide the issue involved in the writ petition. While rejecting his promotion twice, many juniors were promoted and now he is at the verge of retirement. He, therefore, desired that the writ petition should fail.

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the petitioners and Sri E. Peddanna, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned Government Pleader