K.V. HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. THE HIGH COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the writ petitioner for review of our judgment in W. A. No. 44 of 1983, dated 21-6-1983. By that judgment, we had partly allowed the appeals preferred by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

(2.) Two questions fall for consideration then before us. The first was whether the promotion of the writ petitioner was liable to be withheld on the sole ground of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him. The other was ; Whether the petition was to be disposed of on the basis of the facts obtaining on the date when the petitioner approached this court or whether the result of the inquiry which was completed during the pendency of the writ petition could be taken into account by the writ court for moulding the ultimate relief. The learned single Judge held both points in favour of the writ petitioner. But, we disagreed with him on the second question.

(3.) On the first point, we held that the promotion was not liable to be withheld. At the same time, we held differing from our learned brother who had allowed the writ petition, that the record in the case disclosed that the promotion was not withheld on the sole ground that the inquiry was pending but that there was other material as well against him. At the same time, we observed that the other material was in the nature of non-communicated adverse remarks and could not be used against the petitioner. The net result was that the petitioner's promotion could neither be withheld on the ground of 'pendency' of the enquiry nor on the basis of the other material. On these issues falling under the first point, there was no quarrel with the petitioner's contention. But, as in fact, the inquiry was not so 'pending' on the date when the writ petition was disposed of. The inquiry ended in a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments and this fact was very much before this court before it heard the case. That held to the second question.