HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7694 OF 2007 Between: Ms. S. Umarani …Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Transport, Roads & Buildings Department, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others ...Respondents : O R D E R : Counsel for the petitioner : Shri P. Venkatarama Sarma for Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar 24th April, 2007 Per G.S.SINGHVI, CJ This is a petition for setting aside order dated 9-10-2006, vide which the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for quashing the punishment imposed on her by Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the disciplinary authority’). A perusal of the record shows that while the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the Office of Regional Transport Officer, Ranga Reddy District, a departmental enquiry was instituted against her under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963 (for short, ‘the Rules’) on the following charges: “1) that Kum. S. Uma Rani, Junior Assistant registered the vehicle ADB 930 without the vehicle being inspected by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector as required under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. 2) that she had failed to account for the learners licenses applications filed by Sri Maruthi Rao and Dr. Raghupathi Rao. She caused inordinate delay in issue of the same. 3) that she has failed to distribute the non use intimation submitted in tappal section in respect of vehicle APJ7981 to the concerned clerk. 4) that she has disobeyed the orders of his superiors on may occasions. She is careless and negligent and failed to discharge the duties entrusted to her.” The enquiry officer submitted report with the finding that the charges levelled against the delinquent i.e. the petitioner have been proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and issued notice to the petitioner proposing her removal from service. However, after considering her representation, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 26-5-1986 whereby penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner with a direction that the period of suspension be treated as leave with or without pay. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Transport Commissioner vide his order dated 11-12-2001 on the ground that the same was barred by time. Mercy petition and appeal filed by her were rejected by the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh and the State Government respectively by their orders dated 7-8-2003 and 31-5-2004. After one year and about two months of the rejection of mercy appeal by the State Government, the petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Act before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for quashing order dated 31-5-2004. The same was registered as O.A.No.5478 of 2005 and was dismissed by the Tribunal with an observation that the same had been filed after more than two decades. Shri P. Venkatarama Sarma argued that even though the petitioner had approached the Tribunal after long lapse of time, the application filed by her should have been entertained and decided on merits because the disciplinary authority committed a serious error by imposing the penalty despite the fact that no evidence was produced before the enquiry officer to prove the charges. In our opinion, there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed summarily. At the cost of repetition, we consider it necessary to mention that the petitioner had filed the original application on 5-8-2005 i.e. after one year and more than two months of the rejection of her mercy appeal by the State Government and the only prayer made by her was for quashing communication dated 31-5-2004 vide which the State Government rejected her mercy appeal. In the body of the application, the petitioner neither made a mention about order dated 26-5-1986 passed by the disciplinary authority or order dated 11-12-2001 passed by the appellate authority nor she made a prayer for quashing those orders. This appears to have been done because, if in the application filed in August, 2005, she were to make a prayer for quashing orders dated 26-5-1986 and 11-12-2001, the same would be dismissed at the threshold. In order to avoid this consequence, the counsel for the petitioner exhibited his cleverness by giving an impression that his client is interested only in the quashing of memo dated 31-5-2004. However, this ploy could not succeed and the Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by time. It is neither the pleaded case of the petitioner nor the learned counsel has argued that there is any rule, regulation, order or other instrument framed by the government for redressal of grievance of the employee in relation to the order of punishment or the appellate order. The learned counsel could not draw our attention to any provision under which a mercy petition or appeal can be filed by the employee against the punishment or appellate order. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage or the provisions contained in Section 20 (2) (a) read with Section 3 (r) of the Act and seek condonation of delay under Section 21 (3) of the Act.. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 9858 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for fixing an early date of hearing of the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. G.S. SINGHVI, C.J. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. 24th April, 2007 ks