JUDGMENT :- Ghulam Mohammed, J. This writ petition is filed assailing the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) passed in O.A. No.6083 of 2009, dated 19-10-2009, as being perverse and contrary to law and praying to quash the same. 2. It is stated that the respondent herein while working as Mandal Revenue Officer and Deputy Collector, Serilingampally issued mutation orders dated 14-11-2005 in favour of one L. Jaya Reddy in respect of Ac.0-36 guntas in survey No.22 of Gachibowli village without proper verification, and simply relying on the survey report of the Inspector of Survey concerned and the note circulated by his subordinate staff to the effect that the land is a vacant land, which is contrary to his own report submitted to this Court wherein the status of the land in question was described as ‘plots’, which is against the provisions of the Records of Rights Act, 1971. Consequently, departmental proceedings were initiated against him and article of charge was issued to him in G.O. Rt. No.934 Revenue (Vigilance-III) Department, dated 23-04-2008. As the disciplinary proceedings were pending, his promotion to the post of Special Grade Deputy Collector for the panel year 2008-09 was deferred vide G.O. Ms. No.1265 Revenue (Services-I) Department, dated 01-11-2008. While so, he filed O.A. No.6083 of 2009 to consider his case for promotion as Special Grade Deputy Collector without reference to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. The Tribunal by its order dated 19-10-2009 allowed the said O.A. Assailing the order of the Tribunal, the Government filed this writ petition contending that promotion can be denied/deferred if charge memo/charge sheet has already been issued to a delinquent, which stand was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, dated 30-10-2009 in W.P. Nos.19913 and 21739 of 2009 (State of A.P. and another v. A. Ramulu ( 2010 (1) ALD 144 (DB)) and therefore, the case of the respondent cannot be considered for promotion till finalization of the disciplinary proceedings pending against him and hence, the writ petition seeking reversal of the orders of the Tribunal by way of Certiorari. 3. The respondent in his counter-affidavit stated that his entire service right from Deputy Tahsildar to Deputy Collector was blemishless and he was rewarded with best MRO awards for four times. 3. The respondent in his counter-affidavit stated that his entire service right from Deputy Tahsildar to Deputy Collector was blemishless and he was rewarded with best MRO awards for four times. When he was eligible for promotion to the post of Special Grade Deputy Collector, the article of charge was issued for the alleged misconduct, which relates back to three years with a view to deprive him of the promotion. The mutation orders issued by him were confirmed by the statutory appellate authority, which order was relied by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and the High Court in respective proceedings. He contended that issuing article of charge after lapse of three years in respect of a quasi-judicial order and keeping the disciplinary proceedings under cold storage for one and half years even after submission of explanation on 02-06-2008, without rendering any explanation for the delay, is unjust and against the policy issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.679 G.A. (Ser.C) Department, dated 01-11-2008, Circular Memo No.35676/Ser.C/98 GAD, dated 01-07-1998 and Memo No.23537/Ser.C/99-5GAD, dated 28-07-1997, whereunder the disciplinary authorities are directed to conclude departmental enquiries within three months in simple cases and within six months in complicated cases. The various Government Orders referred to in the writ petition are not relevant to decide the issue involved in the writ petition. While rejecting his promotion twice, many juniors were promoted and now he is at the verge of retirement. He, therefore, desired that the writ petition should fail. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the petitioners and Sri E. Peddanna, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The learned Government Pleader vehemently argued that the Tribunal ought not to have directed consideration of the case of the respondent herein for promotion when once a charge memo was issued to him and the disciplinary proceedings are still pending. He also contended that if after completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent is found not guilty of the alleged misconduct, then his case would be considered for promotion retrospectively from the date when his juniors were promoted. He relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. and another v. A. Ramulu (1 supra). 6. He relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. and another v. A. Ramulu (1 supra). 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that initiating departmental proceedings against the respondent for the alleged misconduct after a lapse of three years and alleging such misconduct just before his promotion, and keeping quiet for more than one and half years after submission of explanation to the article of charge and without proceeding with the enquiry, is only to deprive him of the promotion, which is nothing but harassing the respondent at the verge of his retirement. He also contended that the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.679 G.A. (Ser.C) Department, dated 01-11-2008 directing completion of departmental enquiries within three months in simple cases and within six months in respect of complicated cases. Since the petitioners did not complete the departmental proceedings against the respondent even after lapse of more than one and half years, the Tribunal has rightly directed consideration of the case of the respondent for promotion without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings, and no interference is called for with the said order. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down by this Court in State of A.P. and another v. Ramulu and another (1 supra) with reference to G.O. Ms. No.257 G.A. (Ser.C) Department, dated 10-06-1999, whereunder certain guidelines were formulated, which inter alia, relate to deferring of promotion/appointment by transfer to higher post in respect of officers who are facing disciplinary proceedings, when charges are framed and charge memo served. But in the subsequent orders of the Government in G.O. Ms. No.679, dated 01-11-2008, departmental enquiries are directed to be completed within certain time schedules, categorizing them into simple cases being completed within three months and complicated cases being completed within six months. Though orders in G.O. Ms. No.679 were issued by the Government and which was in existence when the order in State of A.P. and another v. Ramulu and another (1 supra), came to be passed, but the fact remains, the same was not brought to the notice of the Court, and as such, the said G.O. did not receive the consideration by the Court. The petitioners have not cited any reason as to why they did not complete the enquiry within the time schedules prescribed in G.O. Ms. The petitioners have not cited any reason as to why they did not complete the enquiry within the time schedules prescribed in G.O. Ms. No. 679, and why the disciplinary proceedings are still not concluded even though more than one and half years have elapsed from the date the respondent submitted his explanation to the article of charge issued by the petitioners. 8. The observation of the Tribunal that the tenability of the charge memo itself is in doubt as it is issued against a quasi-judicial order, does not call for any interference, because the quasi-judicial order against which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent was confirmed by the appellate authority i.e. Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer concerned in proceedings No.C/1704/2007, dated 10-05-2007, which proceedings were also relied on by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad in L.G.C. No.28 of 2006 in deciding the ownership of one Jayareddy in the land in question, in whose favour the mutation orders were issued by the respondent, and this Court also relied on the same in W.P. No.9081 of 2009 (to which one of us is a party Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed). 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent shall go on and they have to be decided on their own merits and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The observations made by the Tribunal as well as this Court shall have no influence over the disciplinary enquiry.