IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7982 of 2009 Between: P.V. Gopal S/o. Mareppa Raydurg Depot, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND Depot Manager, APSRTC, Raydurg Depot, Raydurg, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATA RAMAIAH Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI, STANDING COUNSEL FOR APSRTC. The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 03-06-2000. Heard Sri K.Venkata Ramaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner is a Conductor of the respondent-Corporation. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, wherein charge sheet dated 13-03-2000 was issued to him for allegedly indulging in cash and ticket irregularities. After considering the explanation filed by the petitioner, the respondent passed order dated 03-06-2000, whereby the penalty of deferment of increment with cumulative effect for a period of one year was awarded. This order is questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not preceded by an enquiry and that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwanth Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab[1], this order cannot be sustained. In my considered view, the petitioner cannot be allowed to question the validity of the order passed nearly nine years back. The petitioner failed to give any reason for his keeping quiet for all these nine years. Irrespective of the merits of the case, since the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting his case and the writ petition suffers from uncondonable laches, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed without going into the merits of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.10457 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 20th April, 2009 vrn [1] 1990 (1) LLJ 635