ORDER : A.V. Sesha Sai, J. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is, to the Order dated 06.10.2004, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) in O.A.No.10502 of 2002 and the Memo No.32921/Police.D/A1/2000-4 dated 17.04.2002 issued by the 1st respondent State Government. 2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances, leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as under : The applicant/petitioner herein was initially appointed as Police Constable on 15.05.1977. On the ground that the petitioner herein along with certain others participated in Dharna at the APSP Battalion Headquarters, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against 28 Constables including the petitioner. The Commandant, 2nd Battalion, APSP Kurnool, Kurnool District-3rd respondent herein passed an Order vide proceedings P.R.212/81, dated 14.06.1984, inflicting on the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner herein approached the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh by filing a Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of by the composite High Court, directing the petitioner herein to avail the alternative remedy by filing Departmental Appeal, with a further direction to reinstate the petitioner into service. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent authorities reinstated the applicant/petitioner herein into service on 31.10.1984. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Director General and Inspector General of Police-2nd respondent herein, against the orders of punishment dated 14.06.1984 and the Director General and Inspector General of Police 2nd respondent herein vide proceedings R.C.No.520/T2/85, dated 10.05.1985, rejected the said appeal filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, enclosing a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in R.P.No.953 of 1987 and batch filed by the similarly situated Police Constables, petitioner herein submitted a representation to extend the same benefit in terms of the orders in the said R.P.No.953 of 1987 and batch. Subsequently, the State Government issued an order vide G.O.Rt.No.1268, Home (Police...D) Department, dated 16.05.1990, turning down the request of the petitioner herein, on the ground that the petitioner did not approach the Court and as his appeal was rejected by the 2ndrespondent herein and as the petitioner admitted the charges and did not raise any valid grounds. 3. Assailing the validity of the said orders of the State Government, petitioner herein approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.SR.No.4358 of 1992 with M.A.No.1266 of 1992, for condonation of delay. 3. Assailing the validity of the said orders of the State Government, petitioner herein approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.SR.No.4358 of 1992 with M.A.No.1266 of 1992, for condonation of delay. The said Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of delay, but made the following observations : We however wish to point out that Government should reconsider the matter. The ground that he had not approached the Tribunal and therefore Government do not see any reason to interfere in the matter cannot be said to be a just ground. The Government are therefore advised to reconsider the matter on its merits having regard to the fact that persons similarly placed as the applicant were treated leniently under the directions of the Tribunal, if they consider reappointing the applicant on such terms including lesser punishment as it deems appropriate and also like not treating the period of absence from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement as duty for the purposes of salary and allowances etc. It is hoped that Government will bestow their best attention and dispose of the matter finally, preferably within three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order. 4. Thereafter, while referring to the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal, the State Government issued an order vide G.O.Ms.No.145, Home (Poilce.D) Department dated 07.03.1994, modifying the punishment to that of RTSP by 3 stages for a period of three (03) years with cumulative effect, while directing that the period of suspension and out of employment be treated as dies-non, with a further direction to reinstate the petitioner into service. As a consequence of the aforesaid order vide proceedings R.C.No.D1/OA.4358/92, dated 18.04.1994, the 3rd respondent herein reinstated the applicant/petitioner into service. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner herein made another representation to the State Government and considering the same, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.120, Home (Police.D) Department, dated 11.03.1996, once again modifying the punishment to that of postponement of increment for two (2) years without cumulative effect, with a direction to pay 50% of the arrears and allowances from the date of dismissal, till the date of reinstatement. 6. 6. Subsequently, petitioner submitted another representation and the State Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1480, Home (Police.D) Department, dated 25.06.1998, according sanction under sub-rule 4 of F.R.54 for 90% of pay and allowances to the applicant for the period, during which he was out of employment with effect from 07.11.1984 to 23.04.1994 i.e., from the date of dismissal from service to the date of reinstatement into service subject to adjustment of 50% arrears of pay and allowances sanctioned to the applicant. Vide G.O.Ms.No.120, Home (Police.D) Department, dated 11.03.1996, Government also directed that the period during which the applicant was out of employment should be treated as on duty for the specified purpose of increments under sub-rule (5) of F.R.54. Later, once again the petitioner made another representation and the same came to be rejected by the State Government vide Memo No.32921/Police.D/A1/2000-4, dated 17.04.2002. 7. In the above background, questioning the validity and the legal sustainability of the said Memo dated 17.04.2002, the petitioner herein by invoking provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, filed the present O.A.No.10508 of 2002. The Tribunal, by way of the order under challenge in the present Writ Petition, dismissed the Original Application. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 8. Heard Smt. Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel, representing P. Kishore Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Aswatha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, for the respondents. 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order impugned in the present Writ Petition is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to be basic principles of service jurisprudence. 10. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration, that similarly situated employees, who went on staging dharna along with the writ petitioner were reinstated and were extended all the benefits including seniority, periodical promotions and all other benefits, pursuant to the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal in R.P.No.953 of 1987 and batch. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal grossly erred in dismissing the application on the ground of delay. 11. On the contrary, Sri Aswatha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, contends that only after elaborately and extensively considering all the issues and the contentions, the Tribunal passed the impugned order, as such the same cannot be faulted. 12. 11. On the contrary, Sri Aswatha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, contends that only after elaborately and extensively considering all the issues and the contentions, the Tribunal passed the impugned order, as such the same cannot be faulted. 12. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that, the petitioner herein did not deny his participation in dharna and being a member of disciplined force, the petitioner is expected to maintain utmost integrity and discipline and the order of the Tribunal is not amenable for any correction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. It is also the submission of the learned Government Pleader that, the petitioner herein did not challenge the order of punishment along with the other employees before the Tribunal, as such, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in dismissing the Original Application on the ground of delay. 14. In the above background, now the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court in the present Writ Petition are : 1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition is sustainable and tenable and whether the same warrants any interference to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?. 2. Whether the failure to assail the order of punishment passed by the 3rd respondent along with others is fatal to the case of the petitioner. 3. Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the Original Application on the ground of delay. 15. Findings on issues 1 to 3 : The applicant/petitioner in the present Writ Petition is a man of misfortune as he alone is compelled to suffer the punishment while, the other similarly situated 27 employees have completely been exonerated. The only sin committed by the applicant herein, is that he approached the High Court instead of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal along with other similarly situated employees and invited an order from the High Court and in terms of the said order filed in statutory appeal and continuously pursued the issue repeatedly by approaching the Government obviously with a fond hope that the benefit which the other 27 similarly situated employees got, would be extended to him also. 16. 16. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that, the Tribunal expressed the view that the Original Application instituted by the petitioner herein is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and that as per the allegation in the charge memo the impugned punishment is inadequate. It is obviously not in controversy that though the Appellate Authority initially passed an order on 10.05.1985 modifying the punishment, the Government after periodically considering the representations of the petitioner modified the punishment from time to time, but finally passed an order vide Memo dated 17.04.2002, which came to be assailed in the present Original Application. It cannot be the case of anybody that the applicant approached the Tribunal with abnormal delay after such order. It is an admitted reality that out of 27 employees who participated in dharna against whom orders of dismissal were passed, 25 employees approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of filing the aforesaid Representation Petitions and they were allowed by the Tribunal. The said individuals were completely exonerated and in compliance of the said orders, they were reinstated and extended benefits including seniority, promotions and all other consequential benefits. Therefore, this Court absolutely does not find any justification for denying the claim of the applicant/petitioner herein. 17. Coming to the contention of the learned Government Pleader as to the failure of the petitioner in questioning the initial order of the punishment dated 14.06.1984, this Court is of the opinion that, the same is not fatal to the case of the petitioner herein since the State Government rejected the request of the petitioner vide memo dated 17.04.2002, eventually. It is also required to be noted that apart from questioning the validity of memo dated 17.04.2002, the petitioner herein also sought consequential direction to the respondent to extend all benefits to the applicant/petitioner herein as were extended to all similarly situated police constables vide R.C.No.D1/OA2105/95 dated 09.02.1999. Therefore, by any such allegation it cannot be contended that the failure on the part of the petitioner/applicant in questioning the order of punishment is fatal to the case of the petitioner. 18. This Court has absolutely no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in the present Writ Petition is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law. 18. This Court has absolutely no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in the present Writ Petition is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law. The above reasons and facts and circumstances of the case drive this court towards an irresistible conclusion that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction and dismissed the Original Application. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the dated 06.10.2004, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.10508 of 2002 and consequently orders of punishment passed by the 3rd respondent on 14.06.1984 and all other orders passed by the State Government are set aside and the respondents are directed to extend all the benefits that were extended to the other similarly situated 27 employees who also staged dharna and this exercise shall be completed within four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.