APHC010984642018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 47896/2018 Between: 1. K. VENKATESWARLU, E.110918, APSRTC A.D.C., S/O.K. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ADONI DEPOT, R/O. ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE A P S R T C, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C, KURNOOL REGION, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE DY CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., O/O.REGIONAL MANAGER, KURNOOL REGION, KURNOOL DIST. 4. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., YEMMIGANUR DEPOT, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., ADONI DEPOT, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect besides treating the absent period as not on duty vide Proc No.St/20(105)/90-DVM-Q, Dt.29-10-2010, and the Removal order Dt 2-7-1990, which was confirmed by the Review authority vide Proc.No.PA/(52)/2016-RM-Kurnool, Dt.21-3-2016 as capricious, unconstitutional, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the deferred increments of the petitioner w.e.f 2-7-1990 forthwith and pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “ .... to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect besides treating the absent period as not on duty vide Proc.No.St/20(105)/90-DVM-Q, Dt.29-10-2010, and the Removal order Dt.2.7.1990, which was confirmed by the Review authority vide Proc.No.PA/(52)/2016-RM-Kurnool, Dt.21-3-2016 as capricious, unconstitutional, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the deferred increments of the petitioner w.e.f.2-7-1990 forthwith and pass ...” 2. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for respondent-Corporation. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that petitioner could not attend duties due to severe health reasons and that he was imposed with punishment of deferment of annual grade increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating his absent period as „not on duty‟ vide Proceedings dated 29.10.1990 and the removal order dated 02.07.1990 passed by respondent No.4. Learned counsel would submit that petitioner was not given opportunity to offer explanation and arbitrarily imposed the punishment. The review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent authorities 3 vide Order dated 29.03.2016 passed by respondent No.2. Learned counsel would submit that petitioner could not approach the reviewing authority within the time because of his personal reasons. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner retired from service on superannuation. Finally prays to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order and that the punishment imposed on him may permanently affect on his emoluments. 4. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the Writ Petition and submitted that the review petition filed by the Petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 vide Proceedings dated 29.03.2016 mainly on the ground that after lapse of 25 years of passing final orders imposing punishment against the petitioner, Petitioner has approached the reviewing authority and the reviewing authority has rightly dismissed the review petition as time barred and that Petitioner did not explain the inordinate delay for filing the review petition. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that it is a case of unauthorised absence of the Petitioner for 42 days on the ground of ill-health, which is not supported by any medical certificate. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that in view of inordinate delay and laches, Petitioner‟s claim cannot be entertained and finally prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. Considering the submissions and a perusal of the material on record, as rightly put by learned Standing Counsel, Petitioner did not chose to challenge the impugned order for a period of 25 years. At last, he challenged the impugned order before the reviewing authority after 25 years and such inordinate delay, 4 petitioner has not given any explanation muchless plausible explanation, and on that ground, review petition was rejected as time barred. As can be seen from the record, Petitioner being ADC, Adoni Depot, his absence in the office without any prior intimation and prior sanction of leave, may badly affect the administration of the Corporation. In that view, to the conscious of this Court, the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is not shocking. Viewed from any angle, there are no grounds to entertain this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same deserves dismissal. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 47896 of 2018 09.07.2025 Mjl /*