IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15881 of 2008 Between: B. Venkataiah S/o. B. Yellaiah Nagar Kurnool Depot, Mahabubnagar District. R/o. H.No.17-46/A, Srinagar Colony, Yerragadda, Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nagarkurnool Depot, Mahabubnagar District. 2 The Divisional Manager, (Dy. Chief Traffic Manager) APSRTC, Nagarkurnool Division, Mahabubnagar District. 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahabubnagar Region, Mahabubnagar. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to proceedings MO: 02/95 (48) / 2006- NGKL dt. 29.01.2007 on the file of the 1st respondent and enquire in to the mater quash the same declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent removed the petitioner from service vide proceeding dt. 29.01.2007 as well as rejection of appeal by the 2nd respondent dt. 27.02.2008 are illegal, improper, arbitrary malafide violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as Service Rules and Regulations of the APSRTC and against the principles of natural justice consequentially direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with effect from 29.01.2007 with continuity of service with all attendant benefits and back wages. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SRINIVASA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was working as Conductor in the Nagarkurnool Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was removed from service vide proceedings, dated 29.01.2007, issued by the first respondent. Thereupon, he preferred an appeal before the second respondent on 15.06.2007. The appeal was rejected vide proceedings, dated 27.02.2008, on the ground that it was presented beyond the stipulated period of limitation. The petitioner challenges the order of removal as well as the proceedings that ensued thereafter. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The order of removal was passed against the petitioner on 29.01.2007. It is stated to have been received by the petitioner on 08.02.2007. He contends that he suffered from ill-health and could not present the appeal within the stipulated period of two months before the second respondent. It needs to be observed that the period of limitation stipulated under Regulation 23 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, is not absolute. The Appellate Authority is conferred with the power to condone the delay, in case satisfactory reasons are pleaded. In the instant case, the delay was at the most two months. Even assuming that there is any lack of clarity in the grounds pleaded by the petitioner, he cannot be denied the right of appeal, particularly against an order of removal from service. Except stating that the petitioner has not preferred the appeal within time, the second respondent did not apply its mind to the reasons pleaded by the petitioner. Though the petitioner had preferred a review before the third respondent, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for condonation of delay. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, setting aside the order, dated 27.02.2008, passed by the second respondent. Further, the delay in presentation of the appeal by the petitioner shall stand condoned, and the second respondent shall proceed to decide the appeal on merits. In that view of the matter, the review filed by the petitioner before the third respondent shall stand rejected as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.24.07.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ