IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5264 of 2009 Between: S.V.Ramana Rao S/o.S.Chennaiah Achampeta Depot, APSRTC Resident of Kapra, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Achampeta Mahaboobnagar District 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC,Mahaboobnagar Hyderabad 3 The Executive Director, Hyderabad &Karimnagar Zones, APSRTC, Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, Hyderabad 4 The Vice Chairman cum Managing Director, APSRTC Musheerabad,Hyderabad ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.L.N.RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition appears to be a desperate attempt by the petitioner to retrieve some of the lost ground, on account of his dismissal from service. The petitioner, who was the Chief Inspector of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”), was subjected to a trap laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). Pending disciplinary proceedings, he was placed under suspension by order dated 14-12-2000. He was removed from service by the disciplinary authority by order dated 02-08-2006. Appeal filed by the petitioner, before respondent No.4, proved to be his nemeses, as the latter issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he shall not be dismissed from service because he was convicted in a criminal case pertaining to the same incident. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, respondent No.4 passed order dated 30-10-2008, by which he converted the punishment of removal from service into one of dismissal from service. The petitioner claimed to have filed a mercy petition before the Chairman of the Corporation and the same is stated to be pending. In the present case, the limited issue that is raised by the petitioner is that suspension order dated 14-12-2000 passed by respondent No.1 was without jurisdiction and hence, the petitioner is deemed to have been in service till he was finally removed from service by order dated 02-08-2006. In my considered view, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to raise the contention relating to the validity or otherwise of his suspension order. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, the order of suspension has got merged in the order of removal passed on 02-08-2006 and therefore, it does not have independent existence. At any rate, the petitioner cannot raise the issue of validity of suspension order after a period of nine years, during which time, he was not only removed, but the said removal order was modified into one of dismissal from service. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.6879 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 1st April, 2009 vrn