Heard Ms v. Preeti Reddy

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to reinstate the Petitioner by declaring the proceedings daled 14l8l2O0B of the Regional Manager (Secunderabad Region) as illegal and setaside the same. (Prayer is amended as per Court Order dt: 16-12-20231 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015 MP. NO: 53051 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased issue directions to the Respondent Corporation to consider the Petitioner representation dated 3-10-2013 within a period of 4 weeks. Counsel for the Petitioner: MS. V. PREETI REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI M. RAM MOHAN REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER -iEE*x-'iJ 1 wp_41110_2015 NBK, J THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.41110 of 2015 ORDER: Petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation in 19BB as Conductor; his services were regularized in 1989. He was issued a Charge Memo on 23.02.2007 alleging that he did not issue tickets to a batch of three passengers at Tadbund Stage No.4 while conducting bus No.AP-102 -1526. He furnished explanation, however, not satisfied with the same, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, a Charge Sheet was issued on 05.03.2007, to which the petitioner furnished his explanation. Dissatisfied with the explanation, the respondent authority ordered a detailed enquiry under Chief Inspector fEnquiries), Secunderabad. Basing on the Enquiry Report, a Show Cause notice dated 06.10.2007 was issued to the petitioner directing him to Show Cause as to why he should not be removed from setwice' petitioner furnished his explanation however without considering the same, the 3'd respondent issued proceedings dated 31'10'2007 removing him from service. The Appeal, so also the Revision petition, filed before 2nd respondent-Divisional Manager, and 1s respondent- Regional Manager, were rejected on 03.01.2008 and 14'08'2008, respectively; hence this writ petition'

2. Heard Ms. V. Preeti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent- Corporation. Perused the record. 2 wp_41110 2015 NB( I

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent authorities removed the petitioner from service without even considering his explanation, and therefore the same is illegal.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Corporation would submit that the order of removal dated 31.L0.2007 was passed after due enquiry and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and therefore there is no illegality either in the removal order or the order passed by Revision Authority dated 1,4.0t1.2008. He further submits that there is inordinate and unexplainecl delay of B years on the part of petitioner, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of laches. He places the order passed by the llon' ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2076, dared'1,3.12.2021.

5. It may be noted that the petitioner was removed from service of respondent-Corporation in 2007 and the Appeal and Revision petitions v"rere rejected in the year 2008. Thereafter, petitioner approachecl this Court with this writ petition in [he year 2015 i.e., after a laps,: of 7 years.

6. In the judgment in W.A.Nos.7660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016, rhe Full Bench of this Court, while referring to the judgment in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Puniabl, observed that "the Court is entitled to take into consideration the fact as to whether the petitioner had cftosqn to sit over the matter and wake up afier the decision of the Court; if it is found that the petitioner approached the Court with unreasonable delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a \ 11991 Supp (1) SCC sO4 3 *O_Ot r tON,BO;: discretionary relief. Long delay disentitles a party to the discretionary relief under Articles 32 and 226 and persons who had slept over their rights for long and elected to wake up when they had the impetus from the judgment of similarly sitwated persons." Itwas further held in the Writ Appeal that "the delay of 5 to 78 years was held to be inordinate delay in preferring a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. Admittedly, there is an unexplained and exorbitant delay of 7 years in approaching the Court and there is no plausible explanation forthcoming from the petitioner for squatting over the alleged grievance for so long. Further, it cannot be said that no third paruy rights would get affected either directly or indirectly by entertaining such petitions after an inordinate delay of 7 years. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction for considering discretionary relief under Arricle 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts of the present case. B. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI REGISTRAR ASSIST SE ION OFFICER To 1 2 3 TJ BSR One CC to Ms. V. Preeti Reddy, Advocate tOl'-U-Cl^. il; 66 i; s;i M. nam Morran ft'eddv (sc ror rsnrc; IoPUC] . Two CD CoPies \Y HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 ORDER WP.No.41110 of 2015 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS n rA ,-- *9 {c*ab I I I I I i I i I I I i i I ; I I I ! i i t 'q :1 i-) ) \l J' .- \.{I-: i"'r' j \::,::. .l *r)