JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. N. Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the appellants and Mr. R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 20.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.10660 of 2020, whereby, the learned single Judge, while setting aside Memo No.REV03-17030/1/2020/D SEC-CCT (Revenue Commercial Tax-I) Department dated 27.05.2020, issued by the Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Commercial Taxes-I) Department, directed the appellants herein to implement the order dated 13.05.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8268 of 2020. 3. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (Vigilance.II) Department, issued G.O.Ms.No.466 dated 02.11.2016, in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for brevity “the CCA Rules”), to the effect that disciplinary action will be taken against the officers named therein, in a common proceedings for granting irregular refund in the case of M/s. Gayathri Project (P) Ltd., during the years 2005-06 to 2009-10 resulting in loss to the Government. Common order was issued by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (Vigilance.II) Department, in G.O.Rt.No.1074 dated 02.11.2016, proposing to hold enquiry against the respondent/writ petitioner, who, at the relevant point of time, was working as Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Tax) LTU, No.II Division, Vijayawada and enclosing thereto, amongst others, the articles of charge, in terms of Rule 20 of the CCA Rules. In the articles of charge, it is stated that the respondent/writ petitioner had committed grave irregularities in grant of refund of tax to the tune of Rs.11,22,64,773/-in respect of M/s. Gayathri Project (P) Ltd., for the period from 2007-08 and 2008-09 causing loss to the public exchequer and correspondingly allowing pecuniary gain to an extent of Rs.7,29,90,908/-, to the dealer. 4. It is the case of the respondent/writ petitioner that the aforesaid order dated 02.11.2016 was served on him on 29.03.2018, i.e. after more than 17 months. He had assailed the said orders by filing O.A.No.756 of 2018 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the same was dismissed on the ground of same being premature. Being aggrieved, he approached the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as W.P.No.16392 of 2018. Being aggrieved, he approached the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as W.P.No.16392 of 2018. An interim order was passed on 01.05.2018 in I.A.No.2 of 2018, suspending G.O.Rt.No.1074 dated 02.11.2016. The said order reads as follows: “In the light of the interim order granted by this Court in a similar writ petition, W.P.No.7240 of 2018, and the letter dated 19.11.2016 addressed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, to the Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh holding in favour of the quasi judicial authorities who ordered refund, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for.” 5. The respondent/writ petitioner, thereafter, filed another Writ Petition, being W.P.No.8268 of 2020 before this Court in respect of non-granting of promotion. This Court, on 28.04.2020, in I.A.No.1 of 2020, in the said Writ Petition, passed the following order: “This Court finds that there is a case made out on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, without interdicting the whole procedure, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if one post of Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax is kept pending for a period of two weeks from today to enable the learned Government Pleader to get appropriate instructions and also to file affidavit of the respondents.” 6. Thereafter, on 13.05.2020, this Court passed the following order: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the orders granted by this Court in the earlier writ petition No.16392 of 2018, as per the seniority, the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion and included in the list of promotions and deferred only on the ground of disciplinary proceedings, which were pending against him. Even the Government Pleader has submitted that they have filed counter and vacate stay petition in writ petition No.16392 of 2018 and seriously pursuing the matter for disposal. Even the Government Pleader has submitted that they have filed counter and vacate stay petition in writ petition No.16392 of 2018 and seriously pursuing the matter for disposal. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner and the urgency explained, and in view of the stay granted by the Hon’ble court in the W.P.No.16392 of 2018, without going to the merits of the case, there shall be interim direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and effect the promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner of Sales Taxes expeditiously, within a period of two weeks from today.” 7. Thereafter, the Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Commercial Taxes-I) Department, passed the order dated 27.05.2020, holding that the request of the respondent/writ petitioner for effecting promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner of State Tax, was not considered feasible. 8. In the aforesaid background, the learned single Judge, taking note of the fact that there was positive direction in W.P.No.8268 of 2020 to effect promotion of the respondent/writ petitioner to the post of Joint Commissioner of State Tax, passed the order, which is assailed in the present appeal. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that disciplinary proceedings are still pending against the respondent/writ petitioner and, therefore, the order dated 27.05.2020 was validly passed. It is submitted that an application for vacating the order of stay passed in W.P.No.16392 of 2018, was filed and, therefore, the course of action taken by the appellants, cannot be faulted with. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, while supporting the impugned order, has placed reliance in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 750 and State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 . 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 12. The letter dated 19.11.2016, as noted in the order dated 01.05.2018 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2018, is a letter from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, to the Special Chief Secretary to Government of A.P. Revenue (CT & Excise) Department. 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 12. The letter dated 19.11.2016, as noted in the order dated 01.05.2018 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2018, is a letter from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, to the Special Chief Secretary to Government of A.P. Revenue (CT & Excise) Department. From the said letter, it appears that certain recommendations were made in the vigilance reports of Director General, to initiate disciplinary action against some officers, including the respondent/writ petitioner, who had refunded certain amounts in favour of work Contractors. 13. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes requested the Government of A.P., not to initiate any disciplinary action against the officers, who have refunded the disputed amounts in favour of the work contractors, pursuant to the recommendations in the Vigilance Reports of DG, till a final decision is taken by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the revision orders of the Commissioner (CT), A.P., or to issue new directions to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P. 14. The respondent/writ petitioner retired on 30.06.2020. 15. In Chaman Lal Goyal(supra),while a disciplinary proceeding was pending in the facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the authorities to consider the case of the employee for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the proceeding and to promote him immediately, if he is found fit for promotion, providing further that promotion, if any, effected, shall be subject to review after the conclusion of the enquiry and in the light of the finding in the enquiry. 16. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering whether delay had vitiated disciplinary proceedings. Ratio of the said case is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. The learned single Judge had noted in the course of the order that, in identical set of facts, a number of Writ Petitions including W.P.No.18842 of 2017, were filed questioning the initiation of departmental proceedings and in all such Writ Petitions, this Court had stayed further proceedings. 18. 17. The learned single Judge had noted in the course of the order that, in identical set of facts, a number of Writ Petitions including W.P.No.18842 of 2017, were filed questioning the initiation of departmental proceedings and in all such Writ Petitions, this Court had stayed further proceedings. 18. It is admitted position that the name of the respondent/writ petitioner was included in the panel of Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner of State Tax for the panel year 2019-20. 19. Though application for vacating the interim order passed inI.A.No.2 of 2018 in W.P.No.16392 of 2018 was filed, for reasons which may not detain us, the said application has not been disposed of and, therefore, the interim order passed earlier continues to remain in force. In view of suspension of disciplinary proceeding initiated vide G.O.Rt.No.1074 dated 02.11.2016, this Court, vide order dated 13.05.2020, in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.8628 of 2020, directed the respondents not only to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner but also to effect promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner of State Tax expeditiously. 20. The order dated 13.05.2020 was not assailed in any fora. On the face of the direction contained in the order dated 13.05.2020 passed in W.P.No.8268 of 2020, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 27.05.2020 was not in terms of the directions issued in the said Writ Petition. 21. In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and, accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.