THE HOH’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WA No.867 OF 2007 JUDGMENT : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 1-5-2007 passed in WP No.9858 of 2007 by the learned single Judge of this Court. The appellants herein are the respondents in the writ petition. The writ petitioner-workman-respondent herein while working as Conductor in Waltair Depot, Visakhapatnam District, was issued with a charge sheet dated 19-6-1996 for certain charges. It is stated that the 2nd appellant herein, without conducting any regular departmental enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the workman, straight away passed the impugned order imposing punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby the respondent-workman preferred appeal before the appellate authority, which was rejected and hence filed the writ petition. 2. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order having noticed that the punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect was imposed without there being an inquiry and opportunity to the workman and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in KULWANTH SINGH GILL vs. STATE OF PUNJAB (1991 Supp (1) SCC 504) modified the punishment imposed on the workman to that of stoppage of annual increment without cumulative effect. Against the modification of punishment imposed on the workman by the learned single Judge of this Court, the writ appeal is filed. 3. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent-workman. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned single of this Court. 4. Learned standing counsel for the appellants contended that there is a delay of nine years in pursuing the matter by the workman and, therefore, the learned single judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition much less allowed the same and modified the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted that though there is some delay, the impugned order may not be disturbed because the learned single Judge granted the relief keeping in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill’s case. 5. Admittedly, the respondent-workman was issued with the charge sheet on 19-6-1996 and ultimately punishment was imposed by proceedings dated 11-7-1997. The respondent-workman filed the writ petition in the year 2007, after a long lapse of time of more than nine years. We have also noticed that the workman never endeavoured to make any averments in his petition, the reasons for the delay in approaching the writ Court. It is settled law that the party aggrieved must explain satisfactorily all semblance of delay. The unexplained delay of more than nine years was fatal to the case of the workman. We are of the considered view that the case of the respondent-workman is hit by latches. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ___________________ Sanjay Kumar, J Dated: 14-9-2011 Nrg.