THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22745 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as a Technical Operator Trainee in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. Thereafter, he was promoted as Technical (L-4). A charge sheet was served upon him on 24.08.1996 alleging that he remained unauthorisedly absent for 161 days between November 1995 and August 1996. The petitioner submitted his explanation and a domestic enquiry was conducted. Ultimately, an order was passed on 01.04.1997 by the second respondent directing removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner feels aggrieved by that. He contends that the absence was on account of factors beyond his control and a lenient view ought to have been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere absence even if true ought not to have resulted in severe punishment. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents obtained instructions, at the stage of admission. He contended that the petitioner is a habitual absentee and on earlier occasions, punishments of withholding of one increment and reduction of salary to lower stage were imposed on similar charges and they did not have any effect. He raised an objection on the ground of latches. The petitioner intends to challenge the order of removal after more than a decade. This writ petition is barred by latches. Further, the petitioner does not deny the fact that he remained absent for such a long period. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 27th September 2010 dr