APHC010696472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 36102/2025 Between: 1. P. MANOHAR, , E NO. 553028 S/O. BALAKRISHNAIAH CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC DRIVER SATYAVEDU DEPOT, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BLDGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, RTC HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, AT THE PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION IN VIJAYAWADA REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, A P SATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A P SATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SATYAVEDU, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in taking action on petitioners representation dated 26.5.2025 in spite of lapse of 6 ½ months is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to take action on petitioners representation dated 26.5.2025 and revoke the punishment of withholding his annual increment which falls next due for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides the period of Suspension as Not duty for all purposes vide final order dt.21.03.2011 vide Proc.02/2(7) /2010 - STVO issued by 4th respondent forthwith in the interest of justice and to pass such other orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to direct the respondents to take action on petitioner’s representation dt.26.05.2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice and to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BALAJI BOLLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.36102 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of Respondents in taking action against the representation dated 26.05.2025 submitted by the Petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner joined in the Respondent-Corporation as a Driver in the year 2010. While so, a crime was registered vide Cr.No.155/2010 against the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 IPC and under Section 134(a) & (B) R/w Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act on 20.09.2010 alleging that the Petitioner being the Driver of A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 625 of Satyavedu Depot had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and had hit two pedestrians namely V. Nagulaiah and V. Karraiah of Tiruchanur Harijanawada. One among them i.e., V. Nagulaiah had succumbed to injuries and another was admitted in hospital for treatment. 3. After filing of the Charge-sheet, VI Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Magistrate, Tirupati had taken cognizance of the offences committed by the Petitioner and the same was numbered as C.C.No.100 of 2011. 4 4. At the same, the departmental proceedings were also initiated against the Petitioner and pursuant thereto, the Petitioner was initially suspended on 11.11.2012 and charge-sheet was also issued on the same day with regard to rash and negligent driving and causing damage to the vehicle. 5. Pursuant to the enquiry, the disciplinary authority had passed a final order on 21.03.2011 recovering an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards damage cost to the vehicle and withholding annual increment for a period of two (2) years with cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension as ‘Not on duty’. The Petitioner did not challenge the said order. 6. While so, the Criminal Court had acquitted the Petitioner vide Judgment dated 04.04.2016. In the light of the Judgment of the Criminal Court, the Petitioner sought for re-consideration of the punishment imposed against him and as the same is not being considered, the present Writ Petition is filed. 7. It is to be noted that the order of punishment against the Petitioner was of the year 2011 and no explanation is offered for the delay of 14 years in filing the Writ Petition. 5 8. The Supreme Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and Another1 held that the representations cannot be directed to be considered mechanically. The relevant portion thereof reads as under; “The modus of "representation" 8. Let us take the hypothetical case of an employee who is terminated from service in 1980. He does not challenge the termination. But nearly two decades later, say in the year 2000, he decides to challenge the termination. He is aware that any such challenge would be rejected at the threshold on the ground of delay (if the application is made before tribunal) or on the ground of delay and laches (if a writ petition is filed before a High Court). Therefore, instead of challenging the termination, he gives a representation requesting that he may be taken back to service. Normally, there will be considerable delay in replying to such representations relating to old matters. Taking advantage of this position, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition before the tribunal/High Court seeking a direction to the employer to consider and dispose of his representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or dispose of such applications/petitions (many a time even without notice to the other side), without examining the matter on merits, with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation. 9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mère direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any "decision" on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to "consider". If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to "consider". If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, 1 (2008) 10 SCC 115 6 but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. 10. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored. 10. Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim. 11. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of "acknowledgement of a jural relationship" to give rise to a fresh cause of action. 12. When a government servant abandons service to take up alternative employment or to attend to personal affairs, and does not bother to send any letter seeking leave or letter of resignation or letter of voluntary retirement, and the records do not show that he is treated as being in service, he cannot after two decades, represent that he should be taken back to duty. Nor can such employee be treated as having continued in 5 service, thereby deeming the entire period as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. That will be a travesty of justice. 7 13. Where an employee unauthorisedly absents himself and suddenly appears after 20 years and demands that he should be taken back and approaches the court, the department naturally will not or may not have any record relating to the employee at that distance of time. In such cases, when the employer fails to produce the records of the enquiry and the order of dismissal/removal, court cannot draw an adverse inference against the employer for not producing records, nor direct reinstatement with back wages for 20 years, ignoring the cessation of service or the lucrative alternative employment of the employee. Misplaced sympathy in such matters will encourage indiscipline, lead to unjust enrichment of the employee at fault and result in drain of public exchequer. Many a time there is also no application of mind as to the extent of financial burden, as a result of a routine order for back wages. 14. We are constrained to refer to the several facets of the issue only to emphasise the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for "consideration". If the representation on the face of it is stale, or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, courts should desist from directing "consideration" of such claims.” 9. In view of the delay and in the absence of any challenge to the order of punishment, the relief sought by the Petitioner cannot be considered and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. 10. No costs. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 29.12.2025 IS 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.36102 of 2025 Dated: 29.12.2025 IS