N.KRISHNA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned Proceedings No.02/104(505)/83-DN, dtd. 6/4/1984, withholding two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period as not on duty as arbitrary, violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to restore the deferred increments along with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows :

(3.) The respondent-corporation filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as temporary conductor in APSRTC and posted to Charminar depot on 22/3/1978. Later he was transferred to Dilsukhnagar depot and he reported to duty on 8/5/1978. Thereafter he was promoted as Assistant Depot Clerk from Hayathnagar depot and posted to Ibrahimpatnam depot, vide Office Order No.D-1/255(24)/05-HCR, dtd. 12/5/2006 and reported to duty on 16/5/2006. It is stated that when the petitioner was booked on 7/4/1983 on route Kurmalguda, a check was exercised at 09-05 hours at stage No.5/6. During the course of checking, certain irregularities were detected, for which a charge memo No.17696, dtd. 7/4/1983 was issued, later he was issued charge sheet dtd. 15/4/1983 duly placing him under suspension pending inquiry into the charges. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 16/4/1983, which was found to be unsatisfactory. As such, a regular enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer conducted inquiry and submitted his report on 10/5/1983. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the suspension of the petitioner was lifted. He was issued with a show cause notice, dtd. 29/9/1983 calling upon him to explain as to why his two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect shall not be stopped by treating the suspension period as not on duty. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 13/10/1983 to the show cause notice but he failed to show any new facts to reconsider the proposed penalty and as such, a final order for reduction of pay was issued on 6/4/1984. It is averred that the petitioner did not choose to prefer any appeal against the said order dtd. 6/4/1984. But after a long lapse of 22 years, he preferred the present writ petition. The explanation offered by the petitioner is not convincing and cannot be believed. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and there is no merit in the writ petition warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.