\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 11685 OF 2025 Between: K Siva Reddy, S/o K.Subba Reddy, Aged 71 years. Retired as Engineer-in- Chief (R & B) Department, residing at 8-1-40/ARP/2, Villa No.2, Sri Adithya Royal Palms, 7-Tombs Road, Tolichowki, Opp: Azaan International School Golkonda, Hyderabad - 500 008. ...PETITIONER 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Transport, Roads and Buildings Dept, 1st Floor, 5th Block, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Roads & Buildings Department, Administration, MG Road, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ Order or,pirection more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders issued in G.O.Rt.No. 113, TR&B (Vig. R&B) Dept, dated 13-03-2025 issued by the 1st respondent inflicting the punishment of 5% cut in pension for a period of year against the petitioner herein, for the incident related to 2010, which is beyond 4 years of the incident is contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. and another vs. Shri Krishna Pandey (1996) 9 one 4 see 395 and quash the same in terms of the similar orders passed by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble eouii in W.P.No.25587/2018 and Batch, dated 1:5-11-2018 and W.A.No.453 qf 2021 and batch dated 16-9-2021, and in W.P.No.69^3 of 2025 dated 20-03-2025. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 ePe praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High eourt may be pleased to suspend the impugned orders issued in G.O.Rt.No. 113, TR&B (Vig.R&B) Department dt. 13-03-2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SARMA C V S S Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER 1 4> APHC010222572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) * I [3506] H MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 11685/2025 Between: K Siva Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SARMAC VSS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 2 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- "...may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.113, TR and B (Vig.R and B) Dept, dated 13.03.2025 by the 1 SI respondent inflicting the punishment of 5 percent cut in pension for a period of one year against the petitioner herein for the incident related to 2010 which is beyond 4 years of the incident is contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(li) of A.P Revised Pension Rules as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P and another vs Shri Krishna Pandey (1996) 9 SCC 395 and guash the same in terms of the similar orders passed by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.25587 2018 and Batch dated 15.11.2018 and W.A. No. 453 of 2021 and batch dated 16.9.2021 and in W.P.No.6933 of 2025 dated 20.03.2025 and to pass....” Heard Sri C.V.S.S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll for respondents. 2. 3. The petitioner was retired as Engineer-in-chief on 26.08.2013. While he was working in the said post, based on the vigilance and enforcement inspection with regard to construction of Major Bridge across Vynatheya branch of river Godavari, which was undertaken during the period 2010, he was issued a Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.292 T(R&B) (Vig) Department, dated 23.08.2017, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner failed to impose liquidated damages for slow progress of work, though the reasons are attributable to the contractor causing loss of Rs.5,64,51,817/- to the Government exchequer while execution of aforesaid work. The petitioner has submitted statement of defence on 08.10.2017 and also submitted representation, dated 16.03.2021 inter-alia taking stand that initiating disciplinary proceedings against him is against Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. However, the respondents have imposed punishment vide G.O.Rt.No.113 Transport, Roads and Buildings (VIG.R&B) Department, dated 13.03.2025, by which 5% cut in pension for a period of one yearcame to be imposed. Assailing the same, the present Writ Petition is preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the above facts has contended that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6693 of 2025, dated 20.03.2025. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll did not refute the facts and also that the contention of the petitioner that very initiation of disciplinary proceedings were contrary to Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 6. The Coordinate 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 and another vs. Shri Krishan Pandey^ while dealing ’(1996) 9 see 395 4 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 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 1(1996) 9 see 395 5 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 351-A of the Rules. This order does not preclude proceeding ^jth the investigation into the offence and taking action thereon." 5 7. On perusal of the Rule, it would manifests 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. It is also pertinent to mention that as per Rule 9(6)(a) of Rules, the departmental proceedings deemed to be instituted on the date on which 8. the statement of charges was issued to the Government servant or the pensioner. The Rule 9(6)(a) of Rules, reads as follows: 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 placed under suspension from the earlier date, on such date. Thus, as seen from the above extracted Rule, the departmental 6) 9. proceedings are deemed to be instituted from the date on which statement of charges is issued. The case at hand, the charge memo, dated, 23.08.2017 is beyond four years. In view of the above, as the articles of charge clearly shows that the incident has happened in the year 2010 and that the petitioner retired from the service on 26.08.2013. The impugned charge memo came to be issued '23.08.2017, which is clearly beyond the period of four (4) 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. 10. on 6 Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.292 T(R&B) (Vig) Department, dated 23.08.2017 is set aside. Consequently, the Punishment Order issued by the 1®‘ respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.113, TR & B (Vig.R&B) Department, dated 13.03.2025 is also set 11 aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary to Govt., Transport, Roads and Buildings Dept, 1st Floor, 5th Block, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi. Engineer-in-Chief, Roads and Administration, MG Road, Vijayawada. 3. One CC to Sri Sarma C V S S Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Services II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies 2. The Buildings Department TF HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.11685 of 2025 0 9 JUN 20?5 4i2^SPATCV\^ T3C fo srrrr ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS