APHC010295642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NOs: 14754 & 16920/2024 Between: R Duryodhana Rao ...PETITIONER AND The District Collector And District Magistrate and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 2. WRIT PETITION NO: 16920/2024 Between: R Dhuryodhana Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II SRS,J W.P.Nos.14754 & 16920 of 2024 The Court made the following: :: COMMON ORDER :: W.P.No.14754 of 2024 is filed to declare the action of respondent authorities in not granting and releasing full pension, gratuity, CVP, half pay leave benefits and other retirement benefits, despite no disciplinary proceedings being pending against the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. W.P.No.16920 of 2024 is filed challenging the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide Endt.Rc.No.73/A1/2018/BCW, dated 15.07.2024 (Ex.P2), whereby, serving of charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.86 Backward Classes Welfare (D) Department, dated 03.07.2024 (Ex.P1), as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 9(2) (b)(ii) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 3. Heard Sri P. Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – II appeared for respondents. 4. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of by a common order. 5. The petitioner was appointed as a Hostel Welfare Officer Grade – II, on 27.09.1991. While the petitioner was working at the Government BC Boys Hostel Gara, the Deputy Superintendent ACB, Srikakulam, conducted a surprise check on 25.08.2018. Initially, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 06.09.2018 and thereafter, reinstated into service on 27.08.2019. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2020. Since the retirement benefits are not released, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14754 of 2024. Pending the said writ petition, respondent No.3, issued proceedings vide Endt.Rc.No.73/A1/2018/BCW, dated 15.07.2024 (Ex.P2), a charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.86 Backward SRS,J W.P.Nos.14754 & 16920 of 2024 Classes Welfare (D) Department, dated 03.07.2024 (Ex.P1). Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16920 of 2024. 6. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.3. It was contended inter-alia that the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.86 Backward Classes Welfare (D) Department, dated 03.07.2024, framed charges against the petitioner, under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 r/w Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh CS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). During the raid conducted by the ACB officials on 25.08.2018, they have noticed misappropriation of Government funds to a tune of Rs.1,50,075/- in Government BC Boys Hostel, Gara, towards diet charges of 141 boarders for 73 days from 13.06.2018 to 24.08.2018, etc. and thereby violated Rule 3(1) & 3(2) of the Rules. During the ACB raid, it was noticed that the petitioner failed to stay in the hostel and thereby violated Rule 3(1), 3(2), 4(1) of the Rules. The petitioner failed to maintain records. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the charge memo was issued against the petitioner, after six years of the alleged incident and after retirement of the petitioner on 31.07.2020, and thereby the charge memo is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel placed reliance upon Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Anil Kumar Sarkar1. 8. The point for consideration is: Whether the charge memo issued vide G.O.Rt.No.86 Backward Classes Welfare (D) Department, dated 03.07.2024 is legally sustainable? 9. Shorn of other details, there is no dispute that the petitioner retired from the service on 31.07.2020 and also regarding the issuance of a charge memo 1 (2013) 4 SCC 161 SRS,J W.P.Nos.14754 & 16920 of 2024 against the petitioner and serving the charge memo vide proceedings dated 15.07.2024. 10. As seen from Annexure I of the charge memo, a surprise check was conducted by the ACB officials on 25.08.2018. According to the articles of charge, the alleged misappropriation is from 13.06.2018 to 24.08.2018. 11. Rule 9 of the Rules prescribes withhold or withdraw pension. Rule 9(1) of the Rules prescribes that the State Government reserves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused, to the Government and to the local authority if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. 12. Rule 9(2)(a), (b)(i) and (ii) of the Rules relevant are extracted herewith: (2)(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule(1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. (b) The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment: (i) Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government; (ii) Shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and SRS,J W.P.Nos.14754 & 16920 of 2024 13. Rule 6(a) of the Rules prescribes 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 or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; 14. In the case at hand, it is an undisputed fact that the proceedings were served on the petitioner on 15.07.2024 and the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2020 and a surprise check was conducted on 25.08.2018. thus, the charges were furnished to the petitioner after four years of alleged incident, of course, after retirement. 15. In Anil Kumar’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court while reiterating the principle regarding initiation of departmental proceedings, eventually held that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge sheet is issued. Departmental proceedings is normally said to be initiated only when a charge- sheet is issued. 16. In the light of the said observation given by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 15.07.2024 for an incident occurred from 13.06.2018 to 24.08.2018, clearly demonstrates violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules. As such issuance of charge memo is unsustainable. 17. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. The charge memo issued vide G.O.Rt.No.86 Backward Classes Welfare (D) Department, dated 03.07.2024, is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities shall release the retirement benefits of the petitioner, forthwith as per the Rules. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 10.02.2025 TVN SRS,J W.P.Nos.14754 & 16920 of 2024 201 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION Nos.14754 & 16920 OF 2024 Date : 10.02.2025 TVN