Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation as well as the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record. 2. The petitioner, a former Conductor of the respondent Corporation, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and eventually removed from service through Exhibit P6 dated 07.10.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner took recourse to statutory appeal, which was dismissed through Exhibit P7, dated 17.12.2002. Finally, the petitioner filed a revision which also was dismissed by the authorities through Exhibit P8, dated 21.02.2004.
3. In the light of the concurrent findings of the authorities in affirming the removal of petitioner from service, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P9 W.P.(c) No. 30051 of 2014 2 representation dated 14.08.2007 before the first respondent. Now in the last phase of 2014, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking quashing of Exhibits P6, P7 and P8, all of which were rendered more than a decade ago. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner has not filed any proof to establish that he actually submitted Exhibit P9 representation in 2007.
4. The writ petition is not only hit by severe laches, but also signifies the abuse of process taken recourse to by the petitioner. Though, this Court has felt that the writ has to be dismissed with exemplary costs, given the fact that the petitioner stood removed from service more than a decade ago, this Court does not wish to inflict any financial burden on the petitioner. Accordingly, taking a lenient view, without expressing anything further, this Court dismisses the writ petition. No order as to costs.
DMR/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE