JUDGMENT :- Ghulam Mohammed, J. The Department of Education filed the present writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 5426 of 2007. The facts in brief are that the respondent herein who was working as Lecturer in Physical Education at Government College of Physical Education, Hyderabad retired from service on 31.5.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. While he was in service, the President, Andhra Pradesh Physical Education Lecturers’ Association, Hyderabad, submitted a representation to the 2nd petitioner herein, stating that the respondent while working as Principal (FAC), Government College of Physical Education, Hyderabad, had indulged himself in corrupt practices and misused the Government funds. Pursuant to which, the 2nd respondent directed the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad to enquire into the matter and the Regional Director of School Education, after conducting a preliminary enquiry into the matter, submitted his report. Basing on the report of the Regional Joint Director of School Education, the respondent was served with a charge memo through proceedings in Rc. No. 1025/C2-1/05, dated 21.2.2006. The respondent submitted his explanation to the said charge memo on 18.3.2006. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent, the disciplinary authority ordered for departmental inquiry. The following charges were framed against the respondent: “Article-1: That the said Sri C. Srinivasulu Reddy, Lecturer and Principal, (FAC), GCPE, Hyderabad, while functioning as FAC to the post of Principal, GCPE, Hyderabad, has violated the orders issued by the Government and blindly paid the scholarship amount of Rs.2800/- for the year 2004-05 to the 7 Boarders, i.e. (1)KumidiniDevi, (2) Supriya, (3) P. Jayaprakash (4) Subash Goud (BC-students) and (1) Shobha Rani, (2) Sunitha, (3) Sukpal Singh (SC Students) who did not stay in the hostel which attracts Rule 3 of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-2: That the said Sri C. Srinivasulu Reddy, Lecturer, while functioning as Prl, (FAC), GCPE, Hyderabad has violated the orders issued by the Government and kept the un- disbursed amount of Rs.1,90,765/- which attracts Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rule, 1964.” Further, a second charge memo was issued to the respondent on 12.12.2006 framing the following charges: Article-1: That the said Sri C. Srinivasulu Reddy, Lecturer and Principal (FAC), while functioning as FAC to the post of Principal, GCPE, Hyderabad, collected Rs. 2500/- from each student as tuition fee, spl. Fee, Games fee from 275 students and spent the amount deviating the Government orders which attracts Rule 3 of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-2 That the said Sri C. Srinivasulu Reddy, Lecturer, GCPE, Hyderabad, while functioning as FAC to the post of Principal, GCPE, Hyderbad has made construction work in the College without following the design approved by State Construction corporation and spent huge amounts without proper estimation approved by the competent authority which attracts Rule 3 of A.P.C.A. (CC&A) Rules. Article-3: That the said Sri C. Srinivasulu Reddy, Lecturer, while functioning as FAC to the post of Principal, Hyderabad, has laid 400 mts. Track for Athletics incurring expenditure of Rs.1,66,000/- from Special Fee funds by producing inflated vouchers, which attracts Rule 3 of A.P.C.S.(Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-4: That the said Sri C. Srinivasulu Reddy, Lecturer while functioning as FAC to the post of Principal, Hyderbad, has published books on Physical Education and sold the same to the students forcibly @ Rs.350/- per set in the name of his wife Smt. Girija with his residential address which is against the rules which attracts Rule 3 of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-5: That the said Sri C. Srinivasulu Reddy, Lecturer, while functioning as FAC to the post of Principal, Hyderabad, has purchased library books worth of Rs. 40,000 without following the procedure laid down in G.O. Ms. No.60, Edn., dt. 29.05.2004 which attracts Rule3 of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules,1964. The respondent stated to have submitted his explanation to the aforesaid charges levelled against him on 16.1.2007 and the enquiry initiated against him is in progress. At that stage, the respondent herein approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 5426 of 2007 seeking a direction to the authorities to conclude the enquiry initiated against him at an early date. The Tribunal, through order dated 19.9.2008, impugned in this writ petition, disposed of the said O.A. with a direction to the departmental authorities to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order failing which disciplinary proceedings are deemed to have been dropped. Aggrieved by the said order, the department filed the present writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the department filed the present writ petition. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the Department would contend that since the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent are at the verge of conclusion, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the department to conclude the proceedings within a period of six months with a default clause. He would further contend that the Tribunal without taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the respondent, quite mechanically issued a direction to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a time frame; besides imposing a default clause that if the authorities fail to conclude the enquiry within the time frame stipulated, the proceedings shall deemed to have been dropped. He, therefore, submits that since the Tribunal passed the impugned order in quite a routine manner without considering the seriousness of the allegations, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. On the other hand, Sri Karanam Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would contend that even though the Tribunal directed the authorities to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months, the departmental authorities again filed M.A. No. 543 of 2008 seeking extension of time and in spite of the Tribunal granting two months time, the authorities failed to conclude the same and are again seeking further time. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order needs no interference. There is no dispute about the fact that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent are still pending. There is also no dispute about the fact that the respondent retired from service on 31.5.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. It appears, after the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the respondent guilty of charges 1, 3 and 5, framed vide charge memo dated 12.12.2006, and since the respondent is a retired employee, the Government also issued a show cause notice to him proposing to impose the punishment of 100% cut in his pension permanently. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the respondent and in view of the fact that the respondent is a retired employee, we feel it appropriate to direct the State Government to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent within a period of two months from today. It is however made clear that if the authorities fail to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the time stipulated above, the same shall be deemed to have been dropped against the respondent. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.