GOVT OF A P Vs. D SUDERSHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In our considered opinion, the conduct of the petitioner-authorities in these writ petitions disentitles them to any relief at the hand of this Court under Article 226 Constitution of India.

(2.) These writ petitions are directed against the common judgment of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal for short) in O.A. Nos 2814 and 2822 of 1988 dated 26-11-1999. The respondents herein filed the above O.As.,before the Tribunal assailing the validity of the suspension orders passed against them pending trial before the ACB Court. The Tribunal with the following directions disposed of those applications :

(3.) We are told that the said common order of the Tribunal has become final and consequently it operates. The petitioner-authorities filed these writ petitions only on 25-9-2000. It is not the case of the petitioners that the order of the Tribunal is suspended or stayed by the Tribunal itself or any reviewing Court. It is also admitted position that the enquiry initiated against the respondents is not yet concluded . If this is the factual position, it cannot be gainsaid that the petitioners are under a legal obligation reinstate the respondents into service with effect from 1.2.2000 by virtue of the order of the Tribunal. At the time of hearing these writ petitions for admission, learned G.P for Services 1 who appeared for the petitioners brought to our notice that the respondents were not reinstated into service as directed by the Tribunal. It is also brought to our notice that the petitioner-authorities reviewed the suspension orders passed against the respondents and continued the suspension orders even beyond January, 2000. Should we state that this latter action of the petitioner-authorities flouts the direction by the Tribunal directly ? It is trite to state that State and State authorities are expected and legally obliged to implement the orders and the writ issued by a legally competent judicial Tribunal or Court. The State authorities can never be permitted to flout the orders of the Court with arrogance and without any justification. This very contumacious conduct of the petitioner-authorities, in our considered opinion, disentitles them to get any relief at the hands of this Court under Article 226 Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, we decline to entertain the writ petition on the above ground. On merit also, we do not find any substantive ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. There is no failure of justice. The Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.