C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. The order, dated 05.11.2014, in O.A. No. 2870 of 2014 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal) – respondent No.2, is questioned in this writ petition by the respondents in the said O.A.

2. Respondent No.1 was appointed on 01.02.2012 as a Police Constable in the 8th Battalion Telangana State Special Police, Kondapur, - petitioner No.1 and was placed on probation for a period of two years. As he was unauthorizedly absent for a period about 100 days, petitioner No.1 issued a show cause notice on 30.09.2013, whereby respondent No.1 was called upon to show cause why his probation shall not be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of the period of one month from the date of service of the said notice for his unsatisfactory performance and non-compliance of the conditions under Rules 16 and 17 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. It is relevant to note that in the penultimate para of the said show cause notice, it was held as under:

“It clearly shows that, you committed gross misconduct and carelessness attitude in his legitimate duties and more interested (sic – ‘in’) other affairs further your performance of duties (sic – ‘is’) also not up to the mark.”

Respondent No.1 submitted his explanation. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 passed order, dated 05.12.2013, terminating the probation of respondent No.1 and discharging him from Government service with immediate effect. Assailing the same, respondent No.1 filed the aforesaid O.A. As referred to above, by the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. along with two other O.As. filed by the similarly situated persons.

3. The learned Government Pleader for Services (TS) appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in allowing the O.A. based on the legal principle that a probationer cannot be discharged without enquiry, in cases where the order of discharge casts a stigma on him/her. He has invited this Court’s attention to the discharge order and submitted that in the said order, respondent No.1 was not stigmatized and therefore, the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. by wrong application of law.

4. Opposing the above submissions, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has taken objection to the entertainment of the writ petition on the ground that the same suffers from unexplained laches. Even on merits, he has relied upon the penultimate para of the show cause notice, dated 30.09.2013, as reproduced above and submitted that even though the discharge order per se does not contain the stigmatic remarks, the show cause notice itself shows that the alleged misconduct was the basis for discharging respondent No.1.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties.

6. As regards the laches, the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. on 05.11.2014. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the petitioners for not moving this Court for one year and three months. Not only that they have remained quiet, but also they have kept respondent No.1 in suspended animation, without implementing the order of the Tribunal.

7. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 stipulated one year time from the date of arising of cause of action for an employee to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. This being so, we do not find any reason as to why the same yardstick shall not be applied to the employer for filing the writ petition, if he is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal. Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not stipulate any period of limitation for filing writ petitions, in a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court held that even in the absence of limitation, the Constitutional Courts have to examine whether the party has approached the Court within a reasonable time and that what is reasonable time depends on the facts of each case. (See State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai (AI