A writ petition filed with an inordinate and unexplained delay of nine years against a Tribunal's award will be dismissed, as the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and cannot be invoked to entertain stale service claims.

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the Award dated 12.03.2004 passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.113 of 2001.

2. Heard Sri G.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(a) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor on 20.12.1986 on daily wage basis and subsequently his services were regularized with effect from 15.07.1987. The petitioner claims to have performed his duties diligently for over 17 years, without any adverse remarks until the incident that led to his removal.

(b) On 03.05.1999, while the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Conductor on Bus bearing No.AP-9Z-2826 on the route from Women’s College to Bacharam 'X' Road, a surprise check was conducted by the checking officials of the Divisional Enforcement Squad at Stage No.17/18, Bacharam 'X' Road and alleged that the petitioner was involved in cash and ticket irregularity and accordingly, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on the same day. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 03.05.1999. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, he was placed under suspension on 10.05.1999, and a charge-sheet was served on him on the same day framing the following charges :-

(i) Charge No.1: You have failed to complete ticket issues within one fare stage which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.

(ii) Charge No.2: You have collected the fare of Rs.2.50 E2 who boarded your bus at Kavadipally and bound for Bacharam X Road ex-stages 15 to 17/18 issued bearing ticket Nos.227/697224 of Rs.3.00 and 330/636196 of Rs.2.00 which was already sold in the trip from Banda Ravirala 16.10 hrs late departure 18.30 hrs operating to Abdullapuramettu and the same were already accounted din SR which shows respondent-issued which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28(xxiii) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963.”

(c) The petitioner submitted explanation to the charge-sheet on 21.05.1999 denying the said charges. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent ordered an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 15.07.1999 holding that the petitioner was guilty of both the charges. The petitioner submitted his objections to the enquiry report on 27.03.1999, but the disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice proposing removal from service. The petitioner again submitted a detailed explanation on 03.08.1999, denying all the allegations. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 07.08.1999, removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal on 23.08.1999, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 29.09.1999. A review petition was also filed before the Regional Manager and the same was rejected on 18.07.2000. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2000, the petitioner filed I.D.No.688 of 2000 before the Labour Court, which was later transferred to the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, and renumbered as I.D.No.113 of 2001. The Tribunal vide its Award dated 12.03.2004 while setting aside the order of removal, directed reinstatement of the petitioner as a fresh conductor, without continuity of service and back wages.

(d) Thereafter, the award was implemented, and the petitioner was reinstated into service afresh on 04.07.2004. However, aggrieved by the Award da