E. S.Kumar, E-342180. TSRTC Conductor v. 1. The T.S.R.T.C

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER HON''8rLE ISRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAL(3 $/F'JT PETITION No. 23717 OF 2017 ORDER I \' I t.ioner-conductor in the Statc-or,l,;rr ,1 doad Transport (:1,)-1,:)ration, citing his lailure to cotLduc t ttre bus properly vrhi' involved in a fatal accident, was imltc,se I u,ith punishment -l le ferment of annual increment u.hen le:. t [al1s duc for ir [ ( ],)(: of two years with cumulalivc L'[-r.c _ uid.e proceedir-r11s - i tcrl 15.10.1998 of the 3.d respor-r<ler t - Depot Manager rri'rr : lr ts modified by the 2nd respondent It< gional Manager lrv r'lct datcd 20.06_2001 to tl-rat of ote 1e;r r,r.hich shall have , l ,, : of postponing his future increments. Lt arned counsel [or I -" tioner Sri S.M. Subhan questions t]rc srticl order on the 1ro - rrrl that punishment was imprtsed u ithout con<luctin11 tr 1tl,rr departmental enquiry, as cortcm tlatt_,d under thc AP r IIi( trmployees' (CCA) Regulations. 'l'o jr.rst.fv 1hc saicl contt r,t;r rL re relied on the judgments oi tlte Ill,r,ble Supreme t-'r_,r ir Kulwanth Singh Gill a. Stlr.te oJ'punja.b (1991 Supp (S(lC) 5O4) and the judgment of Divis on tt:nch of this Corr' Writ Appeal No. 606 of 2OO9 darcct 1 ). 07 .2017 which had t ::r into consideration the.judgmenL o,- th.r Full 2 Bench of this Court in P.V. Naragana a. A.p, Stqte Roo;d. Tro.nsp o rt Corporation 1.

2. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for Corporation Sri N. Chandrasekhar submits that Writ petition is hit by delay and laches. He brought to the notice of this Court judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Wnt Appeals No. 166O of 2O18 and 593 of 2016, dated 13.12.2O21 and submits that Writ Petition be dismissed on the said ground.

3. The order sought to be impugned was dated 2O.O7.2OO| and this Writ Petition was filed on 7T.O7.2O|T i.e. after sixteen years which, normally, is to be considered as inordinate. In P.V. Naragana's ccse, the Full Bench of this Court, considering the judgment in Kulwant Singh,s case, in detail, heid that 'il is true that in some cases tahere the delog is fiue gears or so, the Supreme Courl inclined to condone the delag but under different ciratmstances when the fundamental ights ore uiolated or uhere the delag is not directlg attibutable to the party seeking tlrc relief or uhere the ights of the third parties are not interuened or in matters uthere senioritg of employees is nol finalised, the Coutl, tr.tould be justified to grant the relief; but not ' 2013 SCC Online Ap 729 ( ( i { i I " j+:;P44:a-.4*111r , '-' .':: ,.- 'f! ../ ../' ',.,. J l \ as a getTerat t Ltle' of practice. Therefore, in our cottside'n)d cpinion' Kuluant fiingh Gills' case does not confe'r ar cl)the an autotnetlc t !, 1' ,t)ith the employee to challenge the o ''dt r of the authoittr rLt r,r1 time or u)heneuer he tuishes. TLte pit rci;tles laid dotun bt' tLit Ap,zx Court goueming tte condonotion tJ d'iay rttill cetlainlLl ,1 ',(t €:quclllA haue application euen itt. ca -;e" uthere cha.llenge i.: t tcttle to an order imposing the puttishn' e t t :ontrary to the F'eqt, tltions or the ratio in Kuluant Singh Gill's ccse 1\ { (supra) tt,ttr t t the employer had stept ouer the mo.tter at)o LLctd not chosen 1o (L,tilenge it within o reasonable peiod of tlln( lt maA olso be noli ':;1 that in seruice matters, the Coufi s irt'.t'e applied the rule ,.tl rt.t:l.r'.g tttith greater igor." ln the light <'f -he said juclgmcrrt. tl c Hon'ble Division Bench of this Cor 11 in Writ Appeals r ( l:1 r.(' to supra, opined that delay of 5 lo '[i -\r']ilrs was held to bi r c,rrtinate in preferring a r,r'rit petition lLr' '1t r Article 226 ol' t:r" - ,,rrstitution of India. r .,iew of the above pronouncem€'nts 4. slraight r. r' r , tl,iLhout going into merits of the rLi tt' r, holds lhis Court, that WrLt [ 1r ir ion is liable to be dismissed. ' r c Writ Petition is accordingly, disrni ;sed No

5. costs. 4 6 shall stand closed Consequently, miscellan eous Applications, if arr o v //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA EPUTY REGISTRA SECTION OFFICER To, I I

1. One CC to SRI S.M.SUBHAN, Advocate. [OPUC 2. onercc to sR. I N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSRTC. [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies. BSIi GJP I ! ,r.t iT J IJ 03 ..|l ?[6 z o ,b t !'Fs '. .. .1 t HIGH COURT DATED:131A312t025 ; I i I I j I I ! ORDER ,.; WP.No.2371i' o1'2017 I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS .rlrl