C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash the order, dated 16.11.2015, in M.A.No.2589 of 2015 in O.A.(SR)No.12712 of 2015 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) – respondent No.4.

2. We have heard Mr.K.Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Services (TS) appearing for the respondents.

3. While the petitioner was working as Home Guard at Nalgonda District, he was removed from service by respondent No.3, by order, dated 19.06.2009. Six years later, he approached the Tribunal by filing the aforesaid O.A. questioning his removal order. He filed the aforementioned M.A. along with the O.A. under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) for condonation of delay of five (5) years, four (4) months and twenty three (23) days in filing the O.A. Having considered the said application, the Tribunal has dismissed the same, by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the applicant before the Tribunal filed this writ petition.

4. Mr.K.Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that as the order of removal of the petitioner is per se invalid, the limitation for questioning the same has not been commenced and that therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the application for condonation of delay. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Syed Qamarali, 1967 SLR (SC) 228.

5. We have carefully considered the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Before proceeding further, we need to mention the purported explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay. He stated that as his brother was suffering from serious kidney ailment in the month of June, 2009, he applied for leave, that as leave was declined, he left his duty in order to attend to his brother, that his brother died on 27.11.2011 and that he tried to contact respondent Nos.2 and 3 and explain the factual position, but he was not allowed to meet them. He further stated that since he was out of job and has no source of income, he could not approach the Tribunal immediately.

7. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the explanation offered by the petitioner is wholly unconvincing. From the explanation itself, it is evident that he left the duty without obtaining leave in the year 2009 and he has not reported back to the duty thereafter. Even if his brother’s illness was the reason for the petitioner for not approaching the Tribunal earlier, on his own showing, his brother died on 27.11.2011. The only explanation offered by the petitioner for the subsequent delay was that he tried to approach respondent Nos.2 and 3 to explain the factual position, but he was not allowed to meet them. Except his ipse dixit, the petitioner has not produced any material, whatsoever, in support of his plea that he tried to approach respondent Nos.2 and 3 after the death of his brother. At any rate, such explanation hardly constitutes sufficient reason for his failure to avail the judicial remedy for four years after the death of his brother.

8. Be that it as may, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the limitation has not begun and therefore, the O.A. cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. Indeed, this is a self-contradictory plea, for if limitation has not begun, there is no reason for the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay. As the petitioner himself filed the application, he cannot take a contrary plea that the limitation has not begun to run in view of the illegal nature of the removal order. The premise on which the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the limitation has not commenced is that the removal order is invalid or nonest in the eye of law.

9. Section 21 of the Act prescribes limitation for the Tribun