THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No. 190 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J) This Appeal is filed by the employer A.P.S.R.T.C. questioning the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and modifying the punishment imposed by the 1st respondent. The facts of the case show that the 1st respondent suffered a punishment of deployment of annual increment for two years with cumulative effect under the proceedings of the appellant dated 24.7.1995. He was further asked as to why the suspension period should not be treated as duty and for costs of charges of Rs. 1,000/- should not be recovered from him. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice dated 6.5.1995 and after considering the same, the said punishment as proposed was imposed vide proceedings dated 19.5.1995. The 1st respondent preferred a statutory appeal to the Dy. Traffic Chief Manager in the year 1998 i.e. 23.4.1999 which came to be decided by the order of the appellate authority dated 26.4.1999. Thereafter, 1st respondent filed a review petition, which was also dismissed on 6.6.1999. Questioning the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed in February, 2006. From the above chronology of events, it is evident that there was a delay of about 4 years in preferring the statutory appeal and after disposal of the statutory appeal, a further delay of 7 years in approaching this Court by way of Writ Petition. The original disciplinary authority’s order is of 1995. This was also questioned in the writ petition, which was filed in 2006. We have heard both the learned counsel and to the extent of the above ground, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the decision of this Court reported in W.A.No. 623 of 2007, dated 10.8.2007 wherein this Court declined to exercise the jurisdiction under article 226 of Constitution of India, when there was a abnormal delay of 13 years in approaching this Court. The present case also shows that the 1st respondent has approached the Court after a long delay and as such the discretion under Article 226 of Constitution does not arise in favour of the 1st respondent. In view of the above, the order of the learned Single Judge modifying the punishment by the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs and the writ appeal is allowed. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ___________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 24.3.2009 CHV