HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4277 of 2010 Date: 09.03.2010 Between: T. Devaiah. … Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its vice-Chairman and Managing Director & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4277 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 19th December 1992, passed by the 3rd respondent-Depot Manager, in Proceedings No.02/62(21)/92-DM:SRCL, whereby, as a disciplinary measure, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment for a period of two years, which will have the effect of postponing the future increments. 2. The impugned order is questioned on the ground that though the punishment imposed on the petitioner was a major punishment, but the order is passed, without following due procedure. It is submitted that after conclusion of inquiry, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, before imposing the punishment. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered to be disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.18299 of 2005. 3. Before adverting to the above said argument of the learned counsel for petitioner, it is to be noticed that the impugned order of punishment was passed by the disciplinary authority as early as on 19th December 1992, whereas, this writ petition is filed on 23rd of February 2010. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, there is no explanation at all, to explain the inordinate delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. It is now well settled that to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, one has to approach this Court within a reasonable time. In view of the abnormal delay and latches on the part of petitioner, he is not entitled for any relief at this point of time. Therefore, without going into merits, this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of latches and delay. 4. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th March 2010 ajr