IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6205 of 2000 Between: A. Venkateswarlu S/o Ankappa, Conductor, APSRTC, Anantapur Depot, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur Depot, Anantapur District 2. Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur Region, Anantapur District 3. Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur Region, Anantapur District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of deduction of annual increment even without conducting proper enquiry vide proceedings dated 17.12.1990, 27.05.1991, 31.10.91, 25.07.94, 24.04.95, 26.03.97, 10.12.97, 13.04.98, 6.1.99, 8.7.99, 9.12.99 and 17.12.99, and rejecting the appeals of the petitioner by proceedings dated 14.11.91, 21.1.1996 and 21.12.1998 as arbitrary, illegal, malaﬁde and against Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and set aside the same and issue consequential direction to the respondents to grant all increments from the date of his appointment with all consequential benefits in the interest of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6205 OF 2000 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the punishments imposed on him, by the disciplinary authority, in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on twelve diﬀerent occasions, vide orders dated 17.12.1990, 27.05.1991, 31.10.1991, 25.07.1994, 24.04.1995, 26.03.1997, 10.12.1997, 13.04.1998, 06.01.1999, 08.07.1999, 09.12.1999 and 17.12.1999, and the orders passed by the appellate authority confirming the said orders. 2. Though all the aforesaid orders were passed on diﬀerent occasions with reference to diﬀerent charges, there is no factual foundation in the writ petition for each of the said orders, which are assailed in this writ petition. It is not known as to why the petitioner has questioned all the aforesaid orders by way of single writ petition, though the cause of action is diﬀerent for passing each of the order imposing punishment. Further, though the ﬁrst order, in the series of orders, dates back to the year 1990, at no point of time the petitioner has questioned the same, and the present writ petition is ﬁled in the year 2000, questioning all the orders. There is no valid explanation for the inordinate delay and laches. 3. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that right from the date of joining in the Corporation as a Conductor, the petitioner suﬀered several punishments on account of his involvement in cash and ticket irregularities. It is further stated that on eight occasions, the petitioner was censured; on ﬁfteen occasions, his annual increments were deferred with cumulative eﬀect; on two occasions, he was kept under suspension, and on one occasion, he was removed from service, but however subsequently reinstated into service in view of the orders passed by the appellate authority. In the counter-aﬃdavit, the respondents have also explained with regard to enquiry and the incriminating material found against the petitioner, which led to passing of some of the impugned orders in the disciplinary proceedings. 4. As much as the impugned orders are passed on diﬀerent occasions with reference to diﬀerent charges, in the absence of any factual foundation for each of the said charges, it is not possible to examine the validity of the said orders. In any event, in view of the unexplained inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, no relief can be granted in his favour. 5. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY 28th August, 2008 IBL