APHC010254622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 13820/2025 Between: A Tirupathi Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DASARI RAMAKOTESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2 W.P.No.13820 of 2025 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for all records, orders passed by the Respondent No. 3 in Proceeding No. 9593/CRD/SPM (DM)/715/Appeal/2011 dt.16.12.2012 confirming the orders passed by the Respondent No.4 in Proceeding.No. 9593/CRD/SPM(DM)/715/Appeal/2011 dt. 26.09.2012 orders passed by the Respondent No.5 in Rc.No.573/2010/E2/SA dt.21.05.2011 and set aside the same as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondents no.3 to 5 and pass such other order or orders.…” 2. The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant on contract basis under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, by 5th respondent. He was initially appointed for a period of two years from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2010 and got posted at Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District. During the social audit conducted on the works being executed at Etcherla Mandal, it was found that certain amounts were misappropriated in violation of guidelines issued under MGNREGS. Therefore, show cause notice dated 29.12.2010, was issued to petitioner calling upon to submit explanation on the allegations levelled against him. Petitioner after submitting explanation, inquiry was concluded holding that allegations levelled were proved and therefore, he was terminated 3 W.P.No.13820 of 2025 from service by an order dated 21.05.2011. Assailing the same, petitioner preferred W.P.No.18373 of 2011 and the same came to be dismissed by this Court with a liberty to prefer appeal before the appellate authority. Petitioner preferred 1st appeal before the 4th respondent and the same came to be dismissed by an order dated 26.09.2012. Petitioner further preferred 2nd appeal before the 3rd respondent and the same has also been dismissed by an order dated 16.12.2012. Assailing the primary termination order, as confirmed by 1st appellate authority and 2nd appellate authority, the petitioner preferred present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri D.Ramkoteshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been terminated from service by the 5th respondent, as confirmed by respondent Nos.3 and 4, without appreciating the material available on record and affording the petitioner prior opportunity to participate in the inquiry, which is clear violation of principles of natural justice. 5. During hearing, when this Court has posed a query, as to whether any explanation has been offered in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, explaining the cause for delay in filing the writ petition, learned counsel could not point out anything, in particular, from the affidavit. However, he tried to orally explain the 4 W.P.No.13820 of 2025 delay. As seen from the affidavit, there is no whisper or whatsoever explaining the delay in approaching this Court, when the 2nd appellate authority passed orders way back in the year 2012. Petitioner chooses to file present writ petition nearly after thirteen (13) years without even attempting to explain delay and laches. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh1, held that belated service related claim will have to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when remedy sought to be enforced by filing a writ petition or on ground of limitation when remedy is sought to be enforced by approaching Administrative Tribunal. As in the present case, there is an inordinate delay, at no stretch of imagination the petitioner is entitled to invoke equitable jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Over and above, the petitioner kept silent for almost thirteen years in ascertaining his rights and seeking legal remedies. Such a long period of delay is uncondonable. The petitioner by not initiating appropriate legal action is, in a way, given up his claim, which clearly amounts to acquiescence. Since there is a substantive delay, this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 1 (2008) 8 SCC 648 5 W.P.No.13820 of 2025 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 18.06.2025 KBN 6 W.P.No.13820 of 2025 176 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 13820/2025 Date: 18.06.2025 KBN