APHC010153962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8517/2025 Between: Kotari Prasada Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue any writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner vide Charge Memo C.No.03/OE/PR/2022, dated 30.08.2022, after lapse of more than five years period since the date of raid event on 11.10.2017 without there being any specific charge/remark against the Petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust discriminatory, against the time period mentioned in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A. P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, and 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.8517 of 2025 subversive of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further direct the Respondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner vide Charge Memo C.No.03/OE/PR/2022, dated 30.08.2022, which was initiated after lapse of more than five years period since the date of raid event on 11.10.2017 and pass….” 2. With the consent of both learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents, the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage. 3. Petitioner while working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was issued charge memo in C.No.03/OE/PR/2022, dated 30.08.2022, with sole article of charge alleging that he has indulged in manipulation of record while submitting charge-sheet in Crime No.325 of 2017, which occurred on 09.10.2017. By that time, he already attained superannuation on 31.07.2021. Petitioner has submitted explanation to the said charge-memo refuting the said allegations. The enquiry is stated to be pending. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initiation of proceedings after the petitioner’s retirement, for an incident before beyond four years, is unsustainable in view of Rule (9)(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revision Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, “the 3 CGR, J. W.P.No.8517 of 2025 Rules”). The said issue is no more res integra and the same has been decided in P.S. Sainath v. State of Andhra Pradesh1. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I does not refute the same, and he has also placed on record the written instructions. 6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered the aforesaid Rule position and by referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Shri Krishan Pandey2 while dealing with a case of a Government Servant of retirement from service observes as follows: “It would thus be seen that proceedings are required to be instituted against a delinquent officer before retirement. There is no specific provision allowing the officer to continue in service nor any order passed to allow him to continue on reemployment till the enquiry is completed, without allowing him to retire from service. Equally, there is no provision that the proceedings be initiated as disciplinary measure and the action initiated earlier would remain unabated after retirement. If Rule 351-A is to be operative in respect of pending proceedings, by necessary implication, prior sanction of the Governor to continue the proceedings against him is required. On the other hand, the rule also would indicate that if the officer caused pecuniary loss or committed embezzlement etc. due to misconduct or negligence or dereliction of duty, then proceedings should also be instituted after retirement against the officer as expeditiously as possible. But the events of misconduct etc. which may have resulted in the loss to the Government or embezzlement, i.e., the cause for the institution of proceedings, should not have 1 Order, dated 09.12.2024, in W.P.No.24611 of 2024. (AP HC) 2 (1996) 9 SCC 395 4 CGR, J. W.P.No.8517 of 2025 taken place more than four years before the date of institution of proceedings. In other words, the departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct etc. had taken place. Admittedly, in this case the officer had retired on March 31, 1987 and the proceedings were initiated on April 21, 1991. Obviously, the event of embezzlement which caused pecuniary loss to the State took place prior to four years from the date of his retirement. Under these circumstances, the State had disabled itself by their deliberate omissions to take appropriate action against the respondent and allowed the officer to escape from the provisions of Rule 351-A of the Rules. This order does not preclude proceeding with the investigation into the offence and taking action thereon.” 7. On perusal of the Rule, it would manifest that if the departmental proceedings have not been instituted while the Government Servant was in service, whether before his reemployment or during his retirement, the same shall not be instituted in respect of an event which took place before four years in such institution. 8. It is also pertinent to mention that as per Rule 9(6)(a) of the Rules, the departmental proceedings deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges was issued to the Government servant or the pensioner. The Rule 9(6)(a) of Rules, reads as follows: “6) For the purpose of Rules, (a) Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner of if the Government servant has been 5 CGR, J. W.P.No.8517 of 2025 placed under suspension from the earlier date, on such date.” 9. Thus, as seen from the above extracted Rule, the departmental proceedings are deemed to be instituted from the date on which statement of charges is issued. The case at hand, the charge memo, dated 30.08.2022, is beyond four years. 10. In view of the above, as the article of charge clearly shows that the incident has happened on 09.10.2017, and that the petitioner retired from the service on 31.07.2021. The impugned charge memo being issued on 30.08.2022, as communicated on 22.11.2022, is clearly beyond four (04) years. Thus, initiation of disciplinary proceedings clearly violates Rule(9)(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules and hence, the proceedings are liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the charge memo, in C.No.03/OE/PR/2022, dated 30.08.2022, is hereby set aside. It is needless to say, since the charge memo has been set aside, and if there are no other charges or inquiry pending against the petitioner, respondents are directed to release all retiremental benefits to the petitioner, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. 6 CGR, J. W.P.No.8517 of 2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:10.04.2025. cs