THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.1529 of 2010 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioner while working as a police constable, he has suffered punishment of reduction of time scale of pay by three stages for three years with effect on future increments and pension. Apart from that the absence period from 30-05-1992 to 24-01-1994 and the suspension period from 24-01- 1994 to 05-11-1994 are treated as “Not Duty”, vide proceedings, dated 09- 01-1997. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide its order, dated 17-07- 2000, dismissed the appeal confirming the order, dated 09-01-1997. Further aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6648 of 2000 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order, dated 03-02-2004, while confirming the order of punishment holding that there is no illegality or irregularity in the enquiry and in passing final orders, made the following observations:- “However, taking into consideration the fact that when the applicant reported to duty as long back as 12-09-1992 he was not permitted to join duty, it is observed that this order does not prevent the authorities to take a more compassionate view in the matter and see whether the applicant actually reported to duty on 12-09-1992 and on account of technical snag no order was passed. If this is so, the absence period may be treated notionally as on duty without any monetary benefits. With these observations, the O.A. is disposed of. No costs.” Admittedly, the Tribunal held that there is no illegality or irregularity in the enquiry and in passing the order of punishment. But, however, made the above referred observations in favour of the petitioner alone. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to work out remedies, pursuant to the said observations. But, it appears that the petitioner has not made any attempt from the date of disposal till date and after lapse of six years, he has filed this Writ of Mandamus. We are of the opinion that the Writ of Mandamus against the order of the Tribunal, dated 03-02-2004, is not maintainable. However, any writ of certiorari is maintainable that too within a reasonable time. This writ petition is filed after lapse of six years. Therefore, we are not inclined to admit this writ petition on the ground that the writ petition suffers from unexplained delay and lapses. However, this dismissal order will not preclude the petitioner from making any representation to work out his remedies as per the observations made by the Tribunal. With the above observation, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 01-02-2010 Prv