IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 23531 of 2000 Between: S.Venkatesu A.P.S.R.T.C., Rajampet Depot, Rajampet, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director Musheerabad Hyderabad 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C Rep. by Regional Manager Cuddapah Region Cuddapah Cuddpah District 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C Rep. by Depot Manager Rajampet Depot, Rajampet Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order or direction or Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Declaring the action of the Respondents i.e. the action of the 2nd Respondent by its Proceedings No.PA/20.B(141)/92-RN'C' dt.2/12/92 and the 3rd Respondent order by its Proceedings No.2/104(30)/85-RJPT, dt.7-6-1985 are wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Priniciples of Natural Justice and Consequently Direct the Respondents to pay his increments with all his arrears w.e.f. 7-6-1985 and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deems ﬁt and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.B.MALLESWARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner who was working as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation has questioned the proceedings No.02/104(30)85-RJPT dated 07-06-1985 whereby the disciplinary authority has imposed on him a penalty of withholding of annual increment for a period of three years which shall have the eﬀect of postponing his future increments, and the proceedings No.PS/20.B(141)/92- RM'C' dated 02-12-1992 whereby the revisional authority rejected his review petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation issued a charge memo, alleging that on 15-11-1985, he was involved in certain cash and ticket irregularities while on duty on the bus in Hyderabad to Rajampet route. Though he submitted his explanation on 27-05-1985 denying the allegations made against him, the respondent-Corporation even without considering his explanation and without conducting an enquiry or without issuing any show cause notice on the punishment proposed to be imposed on him, straightaway by the proceedings No.02/104(30)85-RJPT dated 07-06-1985 imposed the punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of three years which shall have the eﬀect of postponing his future increments. The appeal preferred against the said order was rejected by the order dated 06-04-1992 on the ground that the appeal was not ﬁled within the limitation period. Thereafter, he preferred a review, but the said review was also rejected by the revisional authority on the ground of delay vide proceedings No.PS/20.B(141)/92- RM'C' dated 02-12-1992. Hence, the petition. 3. In this case, the case of the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority by the proceedings No.02/104(30)85- RJPT dated 07-06-1985 imposed on him a penalty of withholding of annual increment for a period of three years which shall have the eﬀect of postponing the future increments. Though he preferred an appeal on 20-07-1985, the appellate authority failed to consider the matter on merits. But, as can be seen from the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner preferred an appeal only on 16-03-1989 but not on 20-07-1985. In spite of the fact that such an averment is made in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on 11-07-2001, the petitioner did not prefer to ﬁle a reply aﬃdavit denying the said fact. As per the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, the time limit prescribed is only two months. Though the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment on dated 07-06- 1985, the petitioner preferred an appeal nearly about four years thereafter i.e. on 16-03-1989. In that view of the matter, the appellate authority rightly rejected the appeal on 06-04-1992 as time barred. Though the revisional authority rejected his review petition by the order dated 02-12-1992, this writ petition was ﬁled with a further delay of about 8 years. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, except stating the ﬁnancial diﬃculty no other acceptable reason is stated. It is to be seen that he was in employment and he was drawing salary and the punishment imposed on him is only stoppage of increments. In view of the abnormal delay, the reason explained in the aﬃdavit cannot be accepted. Even the revisional authority stated in its order dated 02-12-1992 that the records relating to the proceedings on the petitioner were destroyed as per the rules in force. In that view of the matter and as no other arguments is advanced, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. The writ petition is thus devoid of merits. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 13th November 2008 CVRK