ORDER: (GM,J) 1. Since common questions of law are involved in these writ petitions, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Writ Petition Nos.2521 and 881 of 2010 are filed by the Officers of the State assailing the legality and validity of the common order dated 17.09.2008 passed in O.A. Nos.7661 and 848 of 2007 by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereby three months time was granted to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by passing final orders, failing which the said proceedings were deemed to have been closed and quashed respectively, as being erroneous, perverse and in excess of jurisdiction. 3. Writ Petition No.1519 of 2010 is filed by the Officers of the State assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 16.03.2009 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.No.113 of 2009 in O.A. No.7661 of 2007 whereby the miscellaneous application seeking extension of time to implement the orders passed in the O.As. was dismissed as not maintainable, as illegal, unreasonable and in excess of jurisdiction. 4. The writ petitioners are the respondents and the first respondent is the applicant in the O.As. filed before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as per their array in the said O.As. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector was issued with the three charge memos, vide Memo No.133/V1/2000 dated 05.08.2000 which was subsequently revised vide Charge Memo No.133/C2/2000 dated 23.04.2005, which is the subject matter of O.A. No.848 of 2007; Charge Memo No.2520/V3/2003 dated 19.12.2003 and Charge Memo No.11703/V3/2003 dated 30.06.2005 which are the subject matter of O.A. No.7661 of 2007. The said three charge memos inter alia read as under: “(1) Memo No.133/V1/2000 dated 05.08.2000 Charges: 1) that he has misappropriated Government amount of Rs.2,07,310/- of forged challans. 2) that he is careless and negligent in discharging his official duties. 3) that he has entrusted the work of remitting the Government cash into the bank through the official Attender one Sri G.Ramesh who entered forged challans which resulted in misappropriation of an amount of Rs.2,07,310/-. Thus Sri B.Bhadru, Asst. 2) that he is careless and negligent in discharging his official duties. 3) that he has entrusted the work of remitting the Government cash into the bank through the official Attender one Sri G.Ramesh who entered forged challans which resulted in misappropriation of an amount of Rs.2,07,310/-. Thus Sri B.Bhadru, Asst. M.V.I. at Karimnagar on O.D. has violated Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules, 1964.” The said memo was revised and another charge memo was issued which reads as under: “Charge Memo No.133/C2/2000 dated 23.04.2005 That Sri Banoth Bhadru S/o Dasu joined Govt. service on 08.04.1988 and while working as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector on deputation at Khammam District from January, 1999 to March, 2000 he has committed the following grave misconduct in as much as: 1) he along with his Attender namely Sri G.Ramesh embezzled the Government Revenue to a tune of Rs.2,07,310/- by way of submitting forged challans in Number 226 in the O/o Regional Transport Authority, Karimnagar; 2) he did not remit the Government money an amount of Rs.9,340/-in the bank and misappropriated the same. Thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity in violation of the A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Thus Sri Banoth Bhadru, by his above mentioned acts has exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby contravened Rule 3(1) & (2) of A.P.Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” “(2) Charge Memo No.2520/V3/2003 dated 19.12.2003 That Sri B.Bhadru, S/o Dasu, joined Govt. service on 08.04.1988 and while functioning as AMVI at Transport Check Post, Wankidi during the period between 10.08.2002 to 28.02.2003 committed grave misconduct in as much as not allowing the vehicles to stop at check post, including in corrupt practices and failed to maintain absolute integrity in violation of Rule 3(1)(2) of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Thus Sri B.Bhadru by this above mentioned acts has exhibited lack of integrity devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a member of service and thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(2) of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” “(3) Charge Memo No.11703/V3/2003 dated 30.06.2005 That Sri B.Bhadru S/o Das, joined Govt. Thus Sri B.Bhadru by this above mentioned acts has exhibited lack of integrity devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a member of service and thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(2) of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” “(3) Charge Memo No.11703/V3/2003 dated 30.06.2005 That Sri B.Bhadru S/o Das, joined Govt. service on 08.04.1988 and while working as AMVI Transport Check Post, Wankidi of Adilabad District on deputation during the period between 24.08.2002 to 17.09.2003 committed grave misconduct in as much as he has collected illegal gratification (mamools) from drivers/owners of the goods vehicles passing through the check post by engaging private agents and thus failed to maintain absolute integrity in violation of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Thus Sri B.Bhadru, by this above mentioned act has exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a member of Government service and thereby contravened sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” Thereafter, the applicant filed his separate statements of defence in reply to the charge memos. On not being satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority appointed Enquiry Officers by itself and Presenting Officers, on being nominated by the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, separately. Thus, the three enquiries against the applicant were under progress. 6. Under memo dated 05.08.2000, which was later revised under charge memo dated 23.04.2005, it is alleged that the Government revenue to the tune of Rs.2,07,310/- was misappropriated by forging the challans and that an amount of Rs.9,340/- was alleged to be embezzled by not remitting the same in the Bank through Challans, totalling to Rs.2,16,650/-. It is stated that G.Ramesh, Attender, was suspended and a case in Crime No.19 of 2000 under Sections 409, 420 and 468 of the IPC was registered with I-Town Police Station, Karimnagar, against them and that even before issuing the memo dated 05.08.2000, the amount of Rs.2,07,310/- was remitted by way of three challans on 27.12.1999, 23.12.1999 and 02.05.2000 by the said Attender. After issuing the memo dated 05.08.2000, the amount of Rs.9,340/- was remitted to the Government by way of challan dated 23.04.2001. Thereafter, on a representation made by him, the Attender was reinstated in service on 24.04.2001. In view of the reinvestigation done by ACB in the case, revised Charge Memo 133/C2/2000 dated 23.04.2005 was issued to the applicant. 7. After issuing the memo dated 05.08.2000, the amount of Rs.9,340/- was remitted to the Government by way of challan dated 23.04.2001. Thereafter, on a representation made by him, the Attender was reinstated in service on 24.04.2001. In view of the reinvestigation done by ACB in the case, revised Charge Memo 133/C2/2000 dated 23.04.2005 was issued to the applicant. 7. While so, the applicant filed O.A.No.848 of 2007 contending that that under charge memo dated 23.04.2005, the incident relates to the year 1999-2000 and that although his statement of defence was filed in December, 2000, the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were not completed and concluded still, which is quite contrary to the circular instructions of the Government in Cir.Memo No.35676/Ser.C/98-1, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept. dated 01.07.1998 according to which disciplinary proceedings shall be completed within a period of three months where charges levelled are simple in nature and within a period of six months where charges levelled are complicated. With these averments, he prayed that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him be declared as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, all benefits including seniority and promotion may be granted to him. 8. Under charge memo dated 19.12.2003, it was alleged that during the period between 10.08.2002 to 28.02.2003 the applicant was not allowing the vehicles to stop at the check post as he was anticipating surprise check by the ACB Officials which he should not have resorted to and should have checked the documents pertaining to various vehicles passing through the said check post and that a driver offered Rs.100/- to the check post officials as ‘mamool’ (bribe). 9. Under charge memo dated 30.06.2005, it was alleged that during the period from 24.08.2002 to 17.09.2003 the applicant was involved in the collection of illegal gratification (mamools) from the crew of the vehicles passing through the check post by engaging private agents and that the sum of Rs.7,200/- had been recovered from one such private agent. 10. The applicant also filed O.A. No.7661 of 2007 with the same averments as were made in O.A. No.848 of 2007. He stated that under charge memos dated 19.12.2003 and 30.06.2005, the charges pertain to the incidents dated 28.02.2003 and 17.09.2003 respectively and that he had immediately filed his statements of defence and Enquiry Officers and Presenting Officers were also appointed. The applicant also filed O.A. No.7661 of 2007 with the same averments as were made in O.A. No.848 of 2007. He stated that under charge memos dated 19.12.2003 and 30.06.2005, the charges pertain to the incidents dated 28.02.2003 and 17.09.2003 respectively and that he had immediately filed his statements of defence and Enquiry Officers and Presenting Officers were also appointed. However, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were not completed and concluded still, which is quite contrary to the circular instructions of the Government in Cir.Memo No.35676/Ser.C/98-1, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept. dated 01.07.1998 according to which the disciplinary proceedings shall be completed within a period of three months where charges levelled are simple in nature and within a period of six months where charges levelled are complicated. He therefore prayed that the same may be declared as arbitrary and illegal and that consequential benefits including seniority, promotion, etc. may be granted to him. 11. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel on either side and considering the material placed before it, disposed of both the O.As. by way of a common order. 12. In O.A. No.7661 of 2008, the Tribunal directed the respondents therein to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order as they were initiated in the years 2003 and 2005 and if for any reason, the respondents were not able to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by passing final orders within the said period of three months, the said proceedings were deemed to have been closed as the said proceedings do not relate to misappropriation of the Government funds. 13. In O.A. No.848 of 2007, the Tribunal, while observing that having appointed the Presenting Officer and as the matter relates to misappropriation (even temporary) without going into the merits of the case, as there was inordinate delay of more than nine years, directed the respondents therein to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant vide Charge Memo No.133/C2/2000 dated 23.04.2005 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and if final orders were not passed, the said charge memo stands quashed in as much as the amounts have already been deposited by the Attender, Sri G.Ramesh, and as there was no loss caused to the Government. 14. 14. The said orders were said to have been received by the respondents on 10.10.2008. As the said orders could not be complied with within the time frame fixed by the Tribunal, the respondents were said to have filed Miscellaneous Application No.113 of 2009 under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 16.01.2009 with the prayer to extend the time for a further period of three months to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated and pending against the applicant. The said application was dismissed as not maintainable, as having been filed after the expiry of the time granted by it. 15. Aggrieved by the above orders, the respondents filed the present writ petitions as aforestated. 16. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the writ petitioners/respondents in the O.As. and Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the applicant in the O.As./first respondent in these writ petitions. 17. The learned Government Pleader for Services-II vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed a serious jurisdictional error and ought to have noticed the circumstances under which the departmental proceedings proceeded in the cases on hand and that there are several reasons for the delay in completing and concluding the departmental proceedings, including the delay on the part of the employee due to his non-co-operation. He submitted that in one case, the delay was due to the interim order granted by the Tribunal as the disciplinary proceedings could not go on for a long time and that the entire delay could not be attributed to the disciplinary authority and that the charges levelled against the applicant are serious in nature, being one of misappropriation of Government revenues. He further stated that in two cases enquiry reports have been submitted by the Enquiry Officer and that in one case, the enquiry report is awaited and that even after receipt of enquiry reports, a decision has to be taken by the disciplinary authority in consultation with the Government and that before concluding the disciplinary proceedings, copies of the enquiry reports have to be furnished to the applicant for inviting his representation in that regard and to comply with these requirements, sufficient time is required. He pointed out that the Tribunal lost sight of all these aspects and simply dismissed the miscellaneous application filed, asking for extension of time to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated and pending against the applicant, which it ought to have not done and that it is not permissible for the Tribunal to quash the said proceedings. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in FOREST DEPTT. v. ABDUR RASUL CHOWDHURY (2009) 7 SCC 305 . 18. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent/applicant in the O.A. submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error since there is inordinate delay, which is not satisfactorily explained, in completing and concluding the disciplinary proceedings and therefore the delay has caused prejudice and mental agony for all these years to the applicant as the disciplinary proceedings are kept pending indefinitely, which is quite contrary to the circular instructions issued by the Government in Cir.Memo No.35676/Ser.C/98-1, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept. dated 01.07.1998, according to which the disciplinary proceedings shall be completed within a period of three months where charges levelled are simple in nature and within a period of six months where charges levelled are complicated. He pointed out that the Tribunal considered all these aspects in the proper perspective and rightly directed the respondents to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the time frame fixed by it failing which the said proceedings were deemed to have been closed and quashed. He contended that the Tribunal was also right in dismissing the miscellaneous petition as not maintainable as it was filed much after the expiry of the time granted by it. He therefore submitted that the impugned orders do not warrant interference from this Court. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v. CHAMAN LAL GOYAL (1995) 2 SCC 570 . 19. Admittedly, the allegations in the memo dated 05.08.2000, which was later revised under charge memo dated 23.04.2005 pertain to the years 1999-2000. Similarly, in so far as the charge memos dated 19.12.2003 and 30.06.2005 are concerned, the allegations made therein pertain to the period from 10.08.2002 to 28.02.2003 and from 24.08.2002 to 17.09.2003 respectively. 19. Admittedly, the allegations in the memo dated 05.08.2000, which was later revised under charge memo dated 23.04.2005 pertain to the years 1999-2000. Similarly, in so far as the charge memos dated 19.12.2003 and 30.06.2005 are concerned, the allegations made therein pertain to the period from 10.08.2002 to 28.02.2003 and from 24.08.2002 to 17.09.2003 respectively. On the face of it, no doubt there is an inordinate delay in completing and concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant. It is also evident that the so-called delay is against the letter and spirit of the circular instructions dated 01.07.1998 issued by the Government in this regard. We expressed our displeasure about the said delay and in fact, the learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that there was delay and stated that he would guide the authorities in this regard so as to avoid inordinate delays in initiating and concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against employees. 20. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, though there was inordinate delay in completing and concluding the disciplinary proceedings in the cases on hand, the entire delay cannot be attributed to the disciplinary authority. In one case, the applicant moved the Tribunal and obtained interim order whereby the disciplinary authority could not proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and conclude the same for a long time. 21. Further, it is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that a criminal case was registered against the Attender, G.Ramesh, as well as the applicant but the Investigating Officer appeared to have not made the required efforts to collect and collate evidence to determine the liability and involvement of the applicant in so far as misappropriation of the Government revenues is concerned on the premise that the applicant was found absconding although he was very much attending to his duties and that the relevant material evidence has not been sent to FSL for examination and report by the Investigating Officer and that had the investigation been completed, the applicant would have been prosecuted in a Court of law for the offences alleged against him. 22. 22. It is a settled proposition of law that evidence and proof required in departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings stand on a different and distinct footing, as departmental proceedings proceed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities apropos the alleged misconduct and the disciplinary authority is required to proceed in accordance with the CCA Rules while criminal proceedings are concluded after a regular trial and hot contest and the guilt has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 23. We have given anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. We have also carefully considered the orders impugned in these cases. It is stated that in two cases enquiry reports have been submitted by the Enquiry Officer and in one case, the enquiry report is awaited. The amount alleged to have been misappropriated by the applicant was remitted by the Attender, G.Ramesh, long back. Merely because there was delay in completing and conducting the disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal ought not to have ordered to close and quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated and pending against the applicant, which, according to the learned Government Pleader, are grave in nature. Instead, the Tribunal should have allowed the disciplinary proceedings to reach their logical end. 24. In CHAMAN LAL GOYAL1, it is no doubt true that the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in A.R.ANTULAY v. R.S.NAYAK (1992) 1 SCC 225 wherein it was observed that if the right of an accused towards speedy trial is infringed, it is open to the Court to make such other appropriate order as it finds just and equitable in the circumstances of the case, and held that such a principle would be broadly applicable to a plea of delay in taking the disciplinary proceedings as well. However, the observations of the Supreme Court thereafter are relevant and the same are to the following effect: “12. Applying the balancing process, we are of the opinion that the quashing of charges and of the order appointing enquiry officer was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed.” 25. In ABDUR RASUL CHOWDHURY2, the Supreme Court inter alia held in para 16 thus: “16. It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed.” 25. In ABDUR RASUL CHOWDHURY2, the Supreme Court inter alia held in para 16 thus: “16. The next issue is with regard to delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings. In our view the delay in concluding the domestic enquiry proceedings is not fatal to the proceedings. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The unexplained protracted delay on the part of the employer may be one of the circumstance in not permitting the employer to continue with the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. At the same time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings should be permitted to continue.” 26. Due regard being given to the observations of the Supreme Court extracted hereinabove, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the miscellaneous application filed for extension of time for a period of three months to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings, whereby the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant were deemed to have been closed and quashed. A reading of the impugned order whereby the miscellaneous application was dismissed as not maintainable does not show that the Tribunal had adverted to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the said application. On the other hand, the Tribunal dismissed the same on the sole ground that the same was filed after the expiry of the period of three months granted by it in the orders passed in the O.As. The Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the miscellaneous application and should have granted further time as prayed for, in view of the facts and circumstances explained in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition. 27. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed a serious jurisdictional error and exceeded its limits in passing the impugned orders. Consequently, the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that if for any reason the respondents are not able to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by passing final orders within the time frame fixed by it, the said proceedings are deemed to have been closed and quashed, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that if for any reason the respondents are not able to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by passing final orders within the time frame fixed by it, the said proceedings are deemed to have been closed and quashed, is hereby quashed. In the circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to grant two (2) months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the charge memos referred to supra. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. 28. Before parting with the cases, we express our displeasure as to the manner and method in which the disciplinary proceedings are being conducted. The authorities concerned are not adhering to the circular instructions issued by the Government in this regard. The learned Government Pleader also agreed that there was inordinate delay in the cases on hand although for different reasons and informed this Court that he would advise the authorities concerned to follow the relevant circular instructions scrupulously and see that such delays do not recur in future. Needless to state, such delays keep the disciplinary proceedings hanging over the head of the concerned employee indefinitely causing him untold mental agony. All the more so, if he/she is ultimately held not guilty. Inevitably, this would have a demoralizing effect on the workforce. We hope and trust that this would awaken the authorities concerned from their slumber in dealing with disciplinary proceedings and inspire them to act in strict accordance with the circular instructions issued by the Government.