Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 544 (AP)

T. Ganapathi v. TSRTC

2017-09-01

A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY

body2017
ORDER : A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the review appeal filed by the petitioner by order dated 15.2.2016 bearing No. PA/19(98)/2015-ED-KRZ confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in Procs. No. PA/19(29)/2015: RM:KRMR dated 26.5.2015 and the orders of the 4th respondent dated 13.2.2009 bearing No. E271(01)09 KRTL without conducting any sort of enquiry, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same." 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner met with an accident and due to the facture injuries, he was hospitalized and did not attend the duties, therefore, there is no wilful negligence on the part of the petitioner in attending the duties and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that there is a delay of six years in approaching the appellate authority challenging the termination order and the appeal was dismissed on 26.5.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred review appeal before the Executive Director, Karimnagar Zone, Karimnagar and the same was rejected by order, dated, 15.2.2016, therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 5. As seen from the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner has filed appeal aggrieved by the termination order, dated 13.2.2009 after lapse of six years. If really the petitioner had interest, he would have filed the appeal within a reasonable time after passing of termination order. Therefore, the appeal as well as the review appeal were rightly rejected and therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.