1 APHC010350232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 19399/2025 Between: Sk Basri ...PETITIONER AND Apsrtc and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MULLAPUDI SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 19399/2025 The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the order of termination dated 07.03.2012 issued by the Respondent No.2. 2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as casual conductor on 07.11.2009 and later transferred to Eluru Bus stop and his services were regularized on 01.05.2016 at Eluru Bus Depot. While so, on 19.10.2011, while the Petitioner was on duty, a surprise check was conducted and pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted by the Respondent Corporation. Pursuant to the enquiry, the impugned Order dated 15.03.2012 was issued directing the services of the Petitioner to be re-engaged in the service afresh as contract conductor on contract basis. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the Petitioner had accepted the impugned Order and had joined the Respondent Corporation on contract basis as conductor. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned Order of termination is contrary to the Circular No.PD01/2019, dated 01.01.2019 as the punishment contemplated therein do not contemplate any extreme 3 punishment as imposed against the Petitioner for the alleged misconduct. 4. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the impugned Order was passed in the year 2012 and there is no explanation for the delay of 13 years in filing the present Writ Petition. 5. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court does not find any reason as to why the impugned Order is being challenged after lapse of 13 years, more so, after the Petitioner had accepted the impugned Order and had joined the service as contract conductor. 6. In that view, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Respondent Authorities. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 29.07.2025 eha 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO. 19399/2025 Dated 29.07.2025 eha