THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.19020 OF 2009 Dt.7.10.2009 Between: D.Rajasekhar s/o.Mutyala Raju ..Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.19020 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable on 15.8.1993 and assigned P.C.No.1837. While working as Police Constable at II Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari Ditrict, he was arrested on 4.3.2001 on the allegation that he assisted one N.Vamsi Krishna, who was working as Police Constable with P.C.No.1871 in hiding the stolen 7.62 MM Self loading Rifle with Butt No.57 and body No.15424040 of D.A.R., West Godavari District, Eluru, in the house of one Petaka Rambabu of Nidamarru. During investigation it came to light that the petitioner has aided and abetted the crime by assisting the said P.C.No.1871 in his effort to dispose of the weapon. The said weapon was recovered from the house of the said Rambabu at Nidamarru. The petitioner was arrested on 4.3.2001 and he was suspended on 19.3.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner and the said Vamsi Krishna were removed from service under Article 311(2) of the Constitution as amended by the 42nd amendment Act 1976 to the Constitution of India and Rule 20(10.2) of A.P.C.S (CC&A) Rules, 1991 by order dated 16.5.2001 of the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru. Questioning the said removal order, the petitioner filed M.A.No.3202 of 2004 in O.A.SR.No.12444 of 2004 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to condone the delay of 2 years 4 months 25 days in filing the O.A. The Tribunal by order dated 11.11.2004 refused to condone the delay and rejected the O.A (SR) on the ground that the delay was not at all explained and the impression of the applicant that there was no remedy against the removal order passed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, was untenable. Even after dismissal of the said O.A.(SR) the petitioner is not diligent in approaching this Court and he has approached this Court by filing this writ petition questioning the order of the Tribunal in M.A.No.3202 of 2004 in O.A.(SR).No.12444 of 2004, dated 11.11.2004, only on 8.9.2009 i.e., nearly about five years delay in approaching this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondents. Absolutely no reasons have been explained for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. Further, the perusal of the order of the Tribunal goes to show that the petitioner has not at all explained any reasons, much less sufficient reasons, in approaching the Tribunal against the order of the removal. In fact, the petitioner has filed another O.A., which was dismissed by the Tribunal and aggrieved by the said order he filed W.P.No.18987 of 2009, which was also dismissed by this Court on 10.9.2009. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any ground to entertain the writ petition, which is filed after a delay of nearly about five years against the order of the Tribunal. We also do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is inclined to forego entire retirement benefits if an enquiry is ordered by the respondents. When we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, we are of the opinion that it may not be just and proper to deal with the aforesaid contention or merits of the case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 7.10.2009 kpr