IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20687 OF 2004 Between: B. Gopal, E81641, Sr. Asst., S/o. Somla, R/o. Miryalaguda, Miryalaguda Depot, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC rep by its Regional Manager Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda. 2 The APSRTC rep by its Depot Manager Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents herein in issuing the punishment orders in Proc No. 02/104(178)/83, Suryapet, dated 31.07.1984, which was confirmed by the appellate authority vide Proc No. 01/19(39)/2002-DVM, Suryapet, dated 06.04.2002 and the review authority order in Proc No. PA/19(75)/04-RM-Nalgonda, dated 20th October, 2004 as illegal, non-est in law and as such liable to be set aside and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.20687 OF 2004 O R D E R The petitioner, a conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), challenges the punishment imposed upon him deferring his annual increments for a period of three years with cumulative effect by orders dated 31.07.1984, confirmed in appeal vide Proceedings dated 06.04.2002 and in review by Proceedings dated 20.10.2004. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings while he was working as a conductor at Suryapet Depot in connection with alleged ticketing irregularities. After conducting a regular enquiry, proceedings dated 31.07.1984 were issued by the Depot Manager, Suryapet, imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of three years with cumulative effect. Under the said proceedings the petitioner was also called upon to explain as to why the period of his suspension should not be treated as not on duty. It is the petitioner’s case that the said proceedings are illegal and unsustainable being an order-cum-show cause notice. Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client was not given an opportunity of hearing before imposition of the punishment of deferment of increments, but surprisingly, the APSRTC sought an explanation from the petitioner as to why his suspension period should not be treated as not on duty. The learned counsel submitted that the procedure followed by the APSRTC is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. The learned counsel further submitted that the appeal filed by his client before the Divisional Manager, Nalgonda Division, on 30.10.1984 was not disposed of for years together and ultimately the Divisional Manager, Suryapet, passed orders on 06.04.2002 rejecting the appeal as time barred. The petitioner’s review petition against the dismissal of his appeal culminated in the order dated 20.10.2004 passed by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda, confirming the same. Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel representing Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, submitted that a reading of the review order dated 20.10.2004 would disclose that the petitioner’s appeal had in fact been rejected as long back as on 04.06.1985 on the ground that it was time barred. It appears that the petitioner thereafter filed another appeal, which was entertained erroneously, and orders were passed thereon on 06.04.2002. Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel, submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s appeal by order dated 04.06.1985 was not communicated to him, and therefore, the dismissal of the said appeal has no legal consequence. I am not inclined to accept this submission in as much as the review order dated 20.10.2004 was furnished to the petitioner and is in fact filed as a part of the material papers. In spite of the same, the petitioner did not choose to advert to the dismissal of his appeal by the order dated 04.06.1985 or come forth with a pleading that the same was not communicated to him. Further, the fact that the petitioner did not take any steps after filing an appeal in October, 1984 for years together casts any amount of doubt upon his assertion that the dismissal of his appeal on 04.06.1985 was not communicated to him. All this reflects a patent lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner and divests him of entitlement to relief in this writ petition on merits. The petitioner’s appeal filed on 30.10.1984 was itself belated as the Regulations require that the appeal should be filed within a period of two months. Having suffered the order dated 04.06.1985, the communication of which is denied by the petitioner, he cannot now seek to turn back the clock, having suppressed this aspect notwithstanding the communication of the review order containing these details, and ask for relief basing on the orders passed on his appeal thereafter, which was entertained erroneously. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on this short ground and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 18th SEPTEMBER, 2009 PGS