IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21749 of 1999 Between: K.Narsimha Rao son of Samaiah Ex: Head Constable (Armed Reserve) HQ: Nalgonda, R/o Nalgonda, Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Additional Director General Inspector General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh Lakdikapool , Hyderabad 2 Dy Inspector General of Police Hyderabad Range, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad 3 Superintendent of Police, Nalgoand Dist 4 Sub-Divisional Police Officer Enquiry Officer, Devarakonda , Nalgonda Dist .....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 of Mandamus , set aside the order of the APAT. in O.A.NO. 1128/99 dt. 23/08/99 declaring the same as being contrary to the question of fact and question of law and consequently set aside the impugned order imposing a penalty of retiring the petitioner compulsorily vide order No.C/1458/A6/94 (D.O.No.24 OEPR/94 ) and D.O.No. 672/97 dt. 23/05/97 on the file of the 3rd respondent declaring same as being discriminatory and arbitrary and violative of right to life as enshrined in Arts. 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India, Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.TULASI DAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21749 of 1999 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner while working as a Head Constable, he was compulsorily retired by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 23- 05-1997. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 14- 11-1997 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a revision before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent rejected the revision vide order dated 17-09-1998. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1128 of 1999 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal vide order dated 23-08-1999 disposed the said O.A. permitting the petitioner to file a representation/mercy petition to the Government within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and on receipt of such representation/mercy petition, the concerned authority is directed to examine the same in accordance with rules and law and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months thereafter. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Government rejected the mercy petition. We are of the opinion that unless the said rejection order is questioned, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 10-06-2009 Prv