IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6177 of 2009 Between: T.L.Rao S/o.Kishan Rao Dubbakka Depot, A.P.S.R.T.C. Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Managing Director and Vice Chairman, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Medak Region, Sanga Reddy. 3 Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Medak Division, Sanga Reddy. 4 Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Siddipet Depot, Siddipet. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GIRI KRISHNA The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 15.03.2003 passed by respondent No.4 and order, dated 25.06.2004 passed by respondent No.3 whereby he confirmed the said order of respondent No.4. Heard Sri P.Girikrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is a driver of Siddipet Depot of respondent No.1 Corporation. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him for abusing Sri Solman Reddy, Mechanical Foreman of the said Depot, in an obscene and filthy language. After a full-fledged enquiry, respondent No.4 imposed the penalty of postponement of annual increment for a period of one year, which shall have the effect on his future increments besides treating his suspension period as not on duty for all purposes. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before respondent No.3, who by his order, dated 25.06.2004 dismissed the appeal while agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer and the penalty imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The additional ground on which the appeal was dismissed was that the appeal was time barred. The petitioner kept quiet for nearly five years before filing the present writ petition questioning these two orders. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is vitiated by procedural illegality inasmuch as no show cause notice was issued to him as envisaged in Regulation 12(13) of the APSRTC (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The petitioner failed to disclose any reason whatsoever for approaching this Court with a delay of nearly five years after rejection of his appeal. The petitioner’s lack of diligence in prosecuting his case is also evident from the fact that his appeal was dismissed as belated by the appellate authority, as noted above. The law is well settled that irrespective of the merits of the case, if the petitioner fails to offer sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay in his approaching the Court, this Court would not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of such a person, who is not diligent in pursuing his remedies. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, placed reliance upon order, dated 31.07.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.16406 of 2008. Having regard to the facts of this case and the nature of misconduct proved against the petitioner, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion vested in this Court to set at naught the penalty imposed on the petitioner on the technical ground that a show cause notice was not issued after completion of enquiry and prior to the passing of order, dated 15.03.2003. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by non-issuance of such a show cause notice, he should have been vigilant in availing his remedy within a reasonable time. Therefore, the stale claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained at this length of time. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. .As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.8074 of 2009 filed by the petitioner is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th MARCH, 2009. kvni