K. SAI RAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by order, dated 30.06.2017, in O.A.No.1247 of 2017 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), the unsuccessful applicant in the said O.A. filed this writ petition.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that though a charge memo was issued as far back as 210.2014, so far enquiry proceedings have not been commenced as enquiry officer has not been appointed and that despite the direction issued by the Tribunal on 11.01.2017 in O.A.No.57 of 2017 for completion of the disciplinary proceedings within three months, neither the disciplinary proceedings have been completed nor the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-I is being considered. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has dismissed O.A.No.1247 of 2017 on a reasoning, which in our opinion, is wholly unsustainable. The Tribunal has observed that since order of the Tribunal (termed as Single Member) in O.A.No.57 of 2017 did not envisage consequences of such non-completion, the said order has to be construed as directory and not mandatory. While we do not find any distinction between a Single Member and a Division Bench of the Tribunal, the Bench which disposed of O.A.No.1247 of 2017 has overlooked one vital aspect. The question before it was not whether the earlier order of the "Single Member" of the Tribunal was mandatory or directory, the real question was as to whether the respondents, who flouted the order of the Tribunal by not disposing of the disciplinary proceedings, can penalize the petitioner by not considering his case for promotion on the purported ground of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal has failed to apply its mind from the above perspective and dismissed the O.A. ignoring several orders of this Court directing consideration of the claims for promotion of the delinquents in the disciplinary proceedings, which are kept pending for unduly long periods. In K.Hari Das v. The State of A.P., W.P.No.8690 of 2016, dated 18.03.2016 this Court held as under:

(3.) Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not been following the dicta of this Court in all cases which have been arising before it subsequently. It is needless to emphasize that this Court being the Court of record and conferred with the power of judicial review against the orders of the Tribunal, its judgments have binding force on the Tribunal.