THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.26208 OF 2007 DATE: 28.1.2008 Between: C. Ramanjaneyulu … Petitioner AND The Secretary Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts and D.G. Posts and three others ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.26208 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Smt. P.Sarada, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The relief in the present writ petition is as under: “to issue an order or direction or writ of appropriate nature, preferably one in the nature of ‘MANDAMUS’ directing the respondents to take back the petitioner herein, into service, with all consequential benefits after calling for the records and perusal thereof, declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in punishing the petitioner herein, as null and void, illegal, and in consequence, declare that the petitioner as innocent, and set aside both the impugned orders, contained in Memo No.F-77- 1/92/II D/ 13-11-1995 of recovery of an amount of Rs.16,920/-, in 36 instalments, as also reduction of the pay of the petitioner by 5 stages, from Rs.1420/- to 1300/- for a period of 3 years, and the punishment contained in Memo No.ST-IV/Review-I/96 dated at Kurnool the 28-11-1996 and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3. It appears, the petitioner was dismissed from service through proceedings, dated 28.11.1996, issued by the respondent No.3, on the ground of certain irregularities, and the same had been challenged before the Tribunal by way of filing O.A., which, in fact, was not even numbered. When it was at the stage of SR i.e., O.A. (SR).No.2571 of 2006, miscellaneous application M.A.No.515 of 2006 was filed seeking to condone the delay of about more than nine years in filing the O.A. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that originally the matter was entrusted to one counsel by name Sri Appala Raju, who shifted his practice to Bangalore; that the petitioner could not have any further information from his counsel; that, therefore, the petitioner had filed the said miscellaneous application to condone the delay of about more than nine years in filing the O.A., and that the Tribunal, after considering the merits on record, instead of allowing the said miscellaneous application, dismissed the same. 5. But, interestingly, instead of challenging the order, dated 02.01.2007, of the Tribunal, dismissing the miscellaneous application M.A.No.515 of 2006 and consequently the O.A.(SR).No.2571 of 2006, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the original order of dismissal, dated 28.11.1996, issued by the respondent No.3, which itself is a first and best ground to dismiss the present writ petition. In other words, the petitioner ought to have challenged the order of the Tribunal, instead of filing the writ petition challenging the original order of dismissal. 6. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in respect of the inordinate delay in filing the O.A., before the Tribunal, we are of the view that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 28TH JANUARY 2008 KA