APHC010521922021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition Transfered from APAT No: 2233 of 2021 (O.A.No.2086 of 2018) Between: C. Jayasekhar ...petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. C.Srinivasa Baba Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Services - II The Court made the following: 2 W.P.(AT).No.2233 of 2021 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside G.O.Ms.No.53, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.I) Department, dated 09.05.2018 and the consequential charge memo issued vide G.O.Rt.No.173, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.I) Department, dated 09.05.2018 issued by the 1st respondent by holding as illegal, void, unjust, without jurisdiction and in violation of rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2016 and the event mentioned in the charge memo pertains to the year 2013 and charge memo is dated 09.05.2018. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner is a retired Administrative Officer in the office of District Medical and Health Officer, Chittoor. He retired from the service on 31.08.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. On 09.05.2018, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.53, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.I) Department, according permission to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Consequently, a charge memo was issued vide G.O.Rt.No.173, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.I) Department, dated 09.05.2018 by the 1st respondent as follows: “Charge-I Sri. C.Jyasekhar, the then Administrative Officer, o/o DM&HO, Chittoor (now retired), not followed the instructions governing the purchase of stores as per Article 125 of A.P. 3 W.P.(AT).No.2233 of 2021 Financial Code & G.O.Ms.No.489, dt.08.12.2008 and purchased medicines worth Rs.1,68,50,954/- on nominal quotations from selected Firms /Distributors by splitting indents thereby placed more number of indents to same firm within the span of 3-4 days limiting to Rs.5.00 Lakhs and below. Charge-II: That Sri.C.Jayasekhar, the then Administrative Officer, o/o DM&HO, Chittoor (now retired), not opted to purchase drugs in Generic form to minimize the cost of drugs and not adhered to the suggestions of Drug Inspector, Chittoor and did not follow the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.115, dt.13.5.2010 of HM &FW Department and caused loss to Govt. exchequer. Charge-III: That Sri C.Jayasekhar, the then Administrative Officer, o/o DM&HO, Chittoor (now retired), failed to compare quoted prices with market prices and the suppliers charged high premiums. Charge-IV: That Sri C.Jayasekhar, the then Administrative Officer, o/o DM&HO, Chittoor (now retired), modified the conditions in favor of medical agencies/firms pertaining to expiry date of drug as to be more than two years while issuing procurement order instead of three years without mentioning 4 W.P.(AT).No.2233 of 2021 proper justification and without prior approval of the DLP Committee. Charge-V: That Sri C.Jayasekhar, the then Administrative Officer, o/o DM&HO, Chittoor (now retired), failed to check the quality and date of expiry supplied drugs. Charge-VI: That Sri C.Jayasekhar, the then Administrative Officer, o/o DM&HO, Chittoor (now retired), failed to supervise and check the distribution process of drugs to PHCs. Fictitious quantities have been supplied." The District Medical and Health Officer is empowered to procure emergency / essential drugs / medicines and settlement of bills. The petitioner, who is subordinate to the District Medical and Health Officer, has to follow his instructions in the procurement of drugs / medicines. The petitioner requested the respondents to furnish him the vigilance report dated 29.01.2018 vide representation dated 04.09.2018, but the same was not considered. Aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the aforesaid G.Os, this writ petition was filed contending that the impugned G.Os were passed without following rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which shows the right of the government to withhold or withdraw pension in respect of the departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment “shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four 5 W.P.(AT).No.2233 of 2021 years before such institution." For the purpose of this rule, departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be initiated on the date on which the statement of charges is issued. The charges relate to the incident during 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, and the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2016 and the charge memo was issued on 09.05.2018 and therefore, the charge memo issued by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction and against the above said rules. 3. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit stating the case of the petitioner as noted above and further stating that rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 provides that the departmental proceedings if not instituted while the government servant was in service, they shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the government and shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution etc. In this regard the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.38901 of 2017, dated 17.11.2017 was relied on, which reads as follows: “It is no doubt true that the Rule uses two sets of expressions, namely, (1) "any event which took place” and (2) "institution" The date of institution of the proceedings in this case is 14.05.2012. If a literal interpretation is given to the Rule, the event in respect of which proceedings are initiated actually took place in 2008. But, according to the respondents, the event came to light only on 20.11.2011, when an appraisal report was submitted on the verification of works taken up by the Irrigation Department under a particular project. The petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2009. 6 W.P.(AT).No.2233 of 2021 4. Therefore, the question that arises is as to whether the starting point for calculating the period of four years is the date on which the event actually took place or the date on which the event actually came to light. 5. If we go only by the literal interpretation of the language employed in the rule, learned counsel for the petitioner is perfectly right. But, unfortunately, that is not the way Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) has to be interpreted. Let us take for instance a case where a construction took place in 2008. In a hypothetical case where due to total negligence on the part of the officials and the use of inferior materials, the entire building collapsed in the year 2011, can had be said that Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) has to be literally interpreted to calculate the period from 2008. The date of occurrence of the event is always the date on which the effect of the event is felt or found out. Therefore, the first contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted." 6. Relying on the above observation of the division bench of this Court, it is prayed to vacate the interim orders passed in this writ petition on 25.08.2018 and pass appropriate orders in the main writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services–I representing the respondents. 8. The main point stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980, no charge can be laid against the petitioner since the alleged act of misconduct took place beyond four years as on the date of issuing the statement of charges. In this regard, he placed reliance 7 W.P.(AT).No.2233 of 2021 on the decision of this High Court in Varri Satya Venkata Sanyasi Rao Naidu Vs The State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, TR and B Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District1, wherein there is a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of U.P. and another Vs Shri Krishna Pandey2, in which it was held 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 re- employment 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 taken place more than four years before the date of institution of proceedings. In 1 W.P.No.6933 of 2025 dt.20.03.2025 2 (1996) 9 SCC 395 8 W.P.(AT).No.2233 of 2021 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.” 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this Court has to follow the decision of the Supreme Court as a precedent and not the decision of this Court which was rendered in ignorance of the Supreme Court’s decision. It was also submitted by him that there is no charge that the petitioner received any monetary benefit or that there is any financial loss to the government. 10. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I referred to the decision referred in the counter and the decision of Supreme Court in Brajendra Singh Yambem Vs Union of India and another3 and contended that even if Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 does not permit enquiry beyond four years, disciplinary authority may be directed to continue the disciplinary proceedings within a specified period by exercising powers 3 AIR 2016 SC 4107 9 W.P.(AT).No.2233 of 2021 of this Court under the constitution as was exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in that case taking into consideration the gravity of allegations against the charged Officer. 11. 11. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Supreme Court exercised its authority under Article 142, the same cannot be taken as a precedent. He further submitted that this Court cannot exercise any such authority against the statutory rules. 12. Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which reads as follows: “9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension:- 2(b) The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:” “(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution;” 13. The allegation of the misconduct pertains to period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, whereas the charges were issued on 09.05.2018 after the retirement of the petitioner. In the light of the above said rule as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the above cited case, issue of charge memo against the petitioner beyond the period of four years from the alleged events is not sustainable. Since the direction sought by the learned Government Pleader was given by the Supreme Court exercising its authority under extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, similar 10 W.P.(AT).No.2233 of 2021 direction cannot be passed by this Court. As such, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Dt.07.04.2025 NSM / PNV 11 W.P.(AT).No.2233 of 2021 152 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Writ Petition Transfered from APAT No: 2233 of 2021 Date: 07.04.2025 NSM