APHC010526562023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 27244/2023 Between: K. Narendra Prasad ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “… to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Charge Memos issued in G.O.Rt. No.680, Revenue (Vigilance- I) Department, dated 27.10.2021, issued by the respondent for the incident relates to the year 2016, which is beyond 4 years, contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable in law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in STATE OF U.P.AND ANOTHER Versus Shri Krishna Pandey : 1996 9 SCC 395 and quash the same in terms of the similar orders passed by a Division Bench in W.P.No. 25587/2018 and Batch, dated 15.11.2018, and W. A. No.453 of 2021 and Batch, dated 16.09.2021, and the same Charge Memo 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.27244 of 2023 has been quashed in W. P.No.24733 of 2022, dated 22.06.2023, and consequently, direct the respondents herein to release Full Pension and other retirement benefits immediately with 12 per cent interest and to pass….” 2. Heard Ms. Bugulu Sreeteja, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondent. 3. Petitioner has retired as Joint Collector at Prakasam District, on 30.06.2020. Respondent has issued charge memo., vide G.O.Rt. No.680 Revenue (Vigilance-I) Department, dated 27.10.2021, attributing sole article of charge that he has erroneously fixed market value of the lands at Taduvai and Peddipalli Villages of Jangareddygudem Mandal and Guddigudem Village of Gopalapuram Mandal, while assessing the compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (“for short “the Act, 2013”), which caused financial loss to the State exchequer. 4. As per Annexure-II to the said article of charge, it is stated that pursuant to the letter, dated 23.05.2016, of the Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Polavaram Irrigation Project, Rajamahendravaram, report has been submitted pointing out irregularities noticed on fixation of market value, basing on which, petitioner has been proceed with 3 CGR, J. W.P.No.27244 of 2023 departmental enquiry. Petitioner has submitted explanation on 19.03.2022 refuting aforesaid charges. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the incident, which had occurred in the year 2016, apparently, as per the report submitted by the Special Collector (L.A.), Polavaram Irrigation Project, respondent has issued charge memo on 27.10.2021, after petitioner’s retirement, which is clearly contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. He further submits that the co-charged officers, who have been levelled similar allegations, filed W.P.No.24733 of 2022, for violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, which came to be allowed by this Court, by order, dated 22.06.2023. As petitioner also is on same footing and in as much as for an incident of more than four years of occurrence, impugned charge memo came to be issued after retirement of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to extend the same benefit to the petitioner. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondent does not refute the aforesaid submissions that for the incident of the year 2016, after retirement of petitioner on 30.06.2020, impugned charge memo came to be issued on 27.10.2021 and further that charge memo issued against co-charged officers has been set 4 CGR, J. W.P.No.27244 of 2023 aside by this Court in W.P.No.24733 of 2022. However, he referred to paras.7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit. 7. Considering the fact that in similar circumstances, charge memo against co-charged officers has already been set aside in W.P. No.24733 of 2022, and having regard to the fact that the charge memo came to be issued in the present case is clearly beyond four years of occurrence of incident, which is clearly hit by Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the writ petition must therefore succeed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.680 Revenue (Vigilance-I) Department, dated 27.10.2021, issued by the respondent and further, it is directed to settle the petitioner with all pensionary and other retirement benefits forthwith, if no other disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:30.04.2025. cs