APHC010312662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 15836/2025 Between: 1. MALEY GANGADHARAMN, S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT. 67 YEARS, OCC.RETD. ENGINEER IN CHIEF (R AND B ADMIN) IN THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH R/O H.NO. 77/10, PLOT NO. 14, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR COLONY KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD, TCLANGANA, 72. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROAD, TRANSPORT AND BUILDINGS, DEPARMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI. 3. THE ENGINEERIN CHIEF, ROAD, TRANSPORT AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT (TRANSPORT) THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased pass an order or direction more so in the nature of writ on mandamus declaring the aetion of the Respondent No. 2 herein in issuing GOMs No. 17 dated 13.03.2025, initiating departmental proceedings against the Petitioner herein as illegal arbitrary ultra vires of the rights of the Petitioner as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India and the AP Pension Rules 1980 and consequently quash the GOMs No. 17 dated 13.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2 herein and direct the Respondents herein to forthwith release the pensionary benefits and salary with applicable interest and gratuity due to the Petitioner herein and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to suspend the operation of GOMs No. 17 dated 13.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2 herein and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 2 may be pleased to grant leave to file the Counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.15836 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 13.03.2025, whereby the respondents proposed to conduct departmental proceedings in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The sanction orders issued for initiation of departmental proceedings are under challenge. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service as Engineer-in-Chief on 30.06.2018. It is submitted that a case relating to disproportionate assets was registered against the petitioner by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 01.04.2017 and, on the same day, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The learned counsel further submits that, after an inordinate delay of nearly eight years, the respondent-authorities issued the impugned proceedings according sanction for initiation of departmental proceedings. It is contended that the outer limit prescribed for initiating departmental proceedings against a retired employee is four years from the date of occurrence of the alleged incident and, therefore, the period for initiating such proceedings expired on 31.03.2021. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.P. No.25587 of 2018 and batch, wherein a similar issue relating to initiation of departmental proceedings 4 beyond the prescribed period fell for consideration. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench disapproved such initiation of proceedings beyond the permissible period and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings therein.It is also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Krishna Pandey1 has considered the similar issue and found that the respondents therein were not permitted conduct departmental proceedings beyond the period of four years. 4. Ms.C.Indrani, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been initiated on the date of suspension of the petitioner, i.e., 01.04.2017. It is further submitted that Rule 9(6)(a) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 permits the Government to initiate departmental proceedings even against a retired employee and that there is no bar in initiating such proceedings after retirement and the impugned proceedings are only in continuation of the cause of action that arose on 01.04.2017. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and that the respondents are relying on Rule 9(2)(a) and Rule 9(6)(a) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. It is further submitted that the criminal case against the 1 MANU/SC/0430/1996 5 petitioner is still pending and, therefore, the respondents are entitled to initiate departmental proceedings. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 7. The impugned proceedings would have to comply with the Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Insofar as the interpretation of Rule 9(6)(a) A.P.Revised Pension Rules 1980 is concerned, the rule would categorically require the statement of charge to be issued to the Government Servant or Pensioner and the date of issuance of the statement of charge sheet would be relevant or if the said employee has been placed under suspension from the earlier date on such date, this would imply that the employee would have to be issued a statement charge or in the alternative the employee would have to be placed under suspension and statement of charge sheet should have been issued thereafter. 8. In the present case, though the petitioner was placed under suspension on 01.04.2017, no statement of charge was ever issued to him. The statement of charge is now sought to be issued pursuant to the impugned proceedings. Such a course of action is not permissible in law. The procedure adopted by the respondents is contrary to Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 6 9. Following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are hereby set aside. It is further made clear that the respondents shall release all service benefits due and payable to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 06.05.2026 KGM 7 133 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.15836 OF 2025 Dated 06.05.2026 KGM