THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.34285 of 2017

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“to quash the impugned order No.P2/1 (53)/2006-MLG, dated 29.08.2006 as confirmed in Proc. No.PA/19 (101)/2016-Dy.CTM.N, dated 23.06.2016 and in Proc.No.PA/19 (142)/2016-RM.NLG, dated 10.03.2017 as illegal.”

2. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for APSCR IRRI CL.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services of the respondents’ corporation as conductor in the year 1996 and was removed from service by the respondent No.4 on 29.08.2006. Being aggrieved by the removal order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.3 and the same was rejected vide its order dated 23.06.2016 on the ground of delay. It is further averred that he preferred a revision before the respondent No.2 and the same was rejected vide its order dated 10.03.2017. Aggrieved by the rejection orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, petitioner preferred this Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he submitted his explanation dated 06.07.2006, explaining that due to kidney problem developed on 15.08.2005 while coming to the duty from the home, he was hospitalised and was unable to attend his duties for the period under the charge and submits that there exists a reasonable cause for not attending for the above period and also stated that it does not constitute misconduct within the meaning of Reg. 28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963, but respondent No.4 removed the petitioner from service without considering the said facts and thus it amounts to arbitrary exercise of powers and the same fact was also not considered by respondent No.3 while rejecting his appeal and revision. It is further submitted that due to ignorance of limitation as prescribed in the service regulation, he could not prefer appeal within time, however, the respondent No.3 ought to have considered that he has ample power to condone the delay and further he remained unemployed as he could get any gainful employment till date and thus prayed to quash the removal order dated 29.08.2006.

5. In a counter filed by the respondents, it is submitted that the petitioner was removed from service on 29.08.2006 aggrieved by the same he preferred an appeal with an inordinate delay of ten years without any sufficient reason for delay and thus the appellate authority vide its order dated 23.06.2016 rejected the appeal as “TIME BARRED” and after that the petitioner filed review petition and the same was rejected on 10.03.2017. It is further stated that if the petitioner is really interested towards his duties he would have filed the appeal within a reasonable time but the contention of the petitioner that due to kidney problem he could not attend the duties, as such it does not amount to mis conduct is false, baseless and hence denied. It is further submitted that if the petitioner is really suffering with any health ailments for such a long period he would have approached the authorities and got referred to RTC hospital for better treatment, but the petitioner failed to do so and this clearly demonstrates that he was not interested in his employment and the law is well settled that the unexplained delay defeats a person’s right. Respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Severage Board & Ors. v. T. Murali Babu, 2014 (4) SCC 108 wherein held as follows:

“Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to

protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle th