1 APHC010620382022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 37068/2022 Between: 1. SYED SHAMSHEER HUSSAIN, S/O LATE SYED JAFFAR HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MUSLIM, P.C. NO. 1397 OF YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, RESIDENT OF D. NO. 14/456, DASTAGIRIPETA, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE IN RAJUPALEM P.S., YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, A.P. POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (LAW AND ORDER), RAYALASEEMA REGION, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KURNOOL RANGE, KURNOOL. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue an order, or a direction, or a writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaration action of the 2 Respondent No.4 in issuing his Order in C.No. PR. 23/2001, R.O.O. No. 511/2006, dated 06.11.2006 imposing a penalty of stoppage of 03 increments with cumulative effect and effect on the pension against the petitioner, and the action of the Respondent No.3 in confirming the said Order of R.3 through his Order in L.Dis. No. 70/Land O/RR-1/2007, dated 26.10.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of nature justice, and quash the said proceedings of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 3, and to direct the respondents to release the increments of the petitioner, and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the Order of the Respondent No.4 in C.No. PR. 23/2001, R.0.0. No511/2006, dated 06.11.2006, and the Order of the Respondent No.3 in L.Dis.No.70/L&O/RR-1/2007, dated 26.10.2007, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALEEMULLA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri S. Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the proceedings of the 4th respondent in C.No.PR.23/2001, R.O.O.No.511/2006 dated 06.11.2006, in imposing the punishment of stoppage of three (3) increments with cumulative effect, which was confirmed in appeal by the 3rd respondent, the instant Writ Petition is filed. 3 3. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the 4th respondent in imposing the punishment of stoppage of three (3) increments with cumulative effect. It is contended that, in the year 1996, the petitioner who was working at the relevant time as Constable, Thalamachi Police Station along with the Head Constable of the said Police Station, was assigned duty to conduct a search of an RTC bus, at a time when prohibition was in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh. During the inspection, one person was found in possession of illicit liquor. He was produced before the Sub-Inspector, who threatened him and demanded a sum of Rs.8,080/-. The petitioner was directed to accompany the said person to his village to collect the amount, which he subsequently handed over to the Sub-Inspector. A crime was thereafter registered against both the petitioner and the said Sub-Inspector. However, the petitioner was not charge-sheeted, and only the Sub-Inspector was charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 384 and 161 IPC, in which he was ultimately acquitted. 4. Subsequently, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after a lapse of six (6) years, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The witnesses were examined. The examined witnesses include the Head constable, who had accompanied the petitioner during the search and the person from whom the liquor was seized. Upon appreciation of their evidence, the Inquiry Officer held that the charge against the petitioner was not proved. However, the 4th respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of three (3) increments with cumulative effect. The appeal filed before the 4 3rd respondent was dismissed, confirming the order of the 4th respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 5. On perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is observed that the same were passed in 2006 and 2007 respectively. The petitioner having slept of over the matter for more than two decades cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for judicial review of the said order. The challenge to the same at this point of time after 25 years is wholly unjustified and does not warrant any interference at this stage. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others Versus N. Murugesan and Others1, etc, wherein it is observed as under: “DELAY, LACHES AND ACQUIESCENCE: 20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non- consideration of condonation in certain circumstances. They are bound to be applied by way of practice requiring prudence of the Court than of a strict application of law. The underlying principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be taken note of by the Court. 22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also 1 (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 25 5 involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the Court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy to a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the Court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy.” 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:11.09.2025 MVK 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO:37068 of 2022 Date:11.09.2025 MVK