THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1860 OF 2010 DATED: 03.02.2010 Between: S.K. Azmathulla .. Petitioner And APSRTC, rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 04.08.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent- Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tirupati. It appears, the petitioner, who was working as Driver in the Corporation, was removed from service, by order dated 19.02.2005 of the 3rd respondent- Depot Manager, Madanapalle, after conducting due enquiry on the allegation that he caused an accident leading to the death of a person. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Divisional Manager, Chittoor, against the said order of removal, was rejected on 26.03.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred review petition to the 2nd respondent- Regional Manager, Tirupati, who, after detailed consideration of the matter, has taken a lenient view and passed orders dated 04.08.2005, with the following directions: 1. Sri S.K. Azamathulla, E.550830, Ex-Driver of Madanapalle-II depot be reinstated into service of the Corporation and directed to the Personnel Officer, Tirupati for further posting orders. 2. His pay is reduced by two incremental stages for a period of one year which shall have effect on his future increments. 3. He shall be directed for Medical Examination. 4. He shall be directed for training for a period of one month at ZSTC, Nellore, at his own cost. 5. He has to pay fresh security deposit as per the rules in force and he must be possession of valid driver license by the time of the reporting at new station. 6. The period from the date of removal till he reports for duty shall be treated as ‘Not on Duty’. Aggrieved by the above-referred conditions directed by the 2nd respondent, while ordering his reinstatement into service, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The impugned order was passed way back on 04.08.2005. The petitioner, having been reinstated into service pursuant to the impugned order, came up with the present writ petition, after a lapse of more than four years of passing of the impugned order. There is no plausible explanation from the petitioner for the inordinate delay caused in approaching this Court. The writ petition suffers from irretrievable laches and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 3rd February, 2010. IBL