HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1524 OF 2003 DATED 06.08.2009 BETWEEN: N.Krishnaiah .. Appellant/Petitioner And The A.P.Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd and another .. .. Respondents/Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1524 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) The appellant in this appeal is an unsuccessful petitioner in Writ Petition No.1069 of 2003, who is an employee of the respondent- Federation working as Time Scale Worker. He filed W.P.No.1069 of 2003 inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the orders dated 09.05.1984 passed by the 1st respondent herein dismissing the appellant/petitioner from service and further seeking reinstatement of the appellant/petitioner with all consequential benefits. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, may briefly be stated as follows: - It is not in dispute that while the appellant/petitioner was working as Time Scale Worker, a charge sheet was laid against him on 20.11.1980, which lead to a comprehensive departmental enquiry on serious charges and ultimately, by orders dated 09.5.1984, the appellant/petitioner came to be dismissed from service. The writ petition is filed on 22.12.2002. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. A learned Single Judge of this Court by observing that the Writ Petition has been filed almost after lapse of 18 ½ years and that the Court shall not entertain the writ petitions, if there is inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the Court in order to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dismissed the same on the ground of delay and latches, by order dated 21.01.2003. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that even though the order of dismissal from service was passed long back on 09.05.1984, having regard to the fact that a criminal case was pending on the same allegations and ultimately the appellant/petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.112 of 1988 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet, vide orders dated 2.8.2002, he could not file any writ petition to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India immediately. The learned Single Judge had also considered this aspect and held that even if the criminal case filed against the appellant/petitioner on the very same allegations ends in acquittal, that cannot be a ground for filing the writ petition belatedly. Even on a reassessment of the said plea, we are of the view that it is now well-established principle of law that pendency of criminal proceedings is not a ground to stall the departmental enquiry. In the present case, during the course of departmental enquiry, all the documents have been produced and on the basis of the same, the appellant/petitioner was dismissed from service. A reading of the order in C.C.NO.112 of 1988 shows that the appellant/petitioner was acquitted therein on the ground of a benefit of doubt since the document in question was not produced. Even otherwise the said observation is neither on merits nor on law. In the circumstances, we are of the view that neither the criminal case nor the ultimate result thereof would benefit the appellant, much less save the limitation. We are entirely in agreement with the observations made by the learned single Judge and are of the view that there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J Dated:06.08.2009 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1423 OF 2003 DATED: 06.08.2009