Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49763 (AP)

Sri Ganti Siva Satyanarayana Murthy, v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/25846/2025 · 2025-09-21

Nyapathy Vijay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010487982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE LT, s- PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 25846 OF 2025 Between: Sri Ganti Siva Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o Late Somasundaram, aged 63 years, R/o Flat No. F2 Dinesh Homes, Near Sub Registrar Office, Chinamushidavada, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 530051 ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, 1st and 3rd Floor, APIIC Towers, Plot No. 1, IT Partk, Mangalgiri Gunturu District-522503 3. The District Collector, Vizianagaram -535003. its Special Chief Revenue (Vigilance-Ill) Department ...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 to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned G.O.Ms.No.l55 Rev (Vig-I) Dept Dt.02.05.2024 of the 1st Respondent whereby accorded sanction of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as per Rule 9 (2) (b) (i) of AP Revised Pension Rules 1980 and the impugned consequential proceedings issued vide G.O.Rt.No.416 Rev (Vig-I) Dept Dt.02-05-2024 whereby framing Article of charges and continuing departmental enquiry against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, against the Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of AP Revised Pension Rules.1980 and violative of besides Article 21 of the Constitution of India and A Jpjse.\ aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to drop the » y. Wither actiqn of disciplinary proceedings. ^ ■' h lA NO: 1 jbF 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 to suspend the impugned G.O.Ms.No.l55 Rev (Vig-I) Dept Dt.02.05.2024 and G.O.Rt.No. 416 Rev (Vig-I) Dept Dt.02-05-2024 of 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010487982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 25846/2025 Between: 1.SRI GANTI SIVA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,, S/O LATE SOMASUNDARAM, AGED 63 YEARS, R/0 FLAT NO. F2 DINESH HOMES CHINAMUSHIDAVADA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 530051 NEAR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PENDURTHY MANDAL, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. (VIGILANCE-111) DEPARTMENT 2.THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, 1ST AND 3RD FLOOR, APIIC TOWERS, PLOT NO.L, IT PARTK, MANGALGIRI GUNTURU DISTRICT-522503 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM -535003. ...RESPONDENT(S): \ i 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA \ Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ~1 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.25846 of 2025 ORDER: In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the charge memorandum issued vide G.O.Rt.No.416, Revenue (Vigilance-I) Department, dated 02.05.2024 proposing to conduct an enquiry under Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Typist in Revenue Department in the year 1985 and had retired as Tahsildar on 31.01.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation The Petitioner last worked as Tahsildar, Dattirajuru Mandal and was permitted to retire from service vide G.O.Ms.No.57, Revenue (Services-ll) Department, dated 03.02.2021 of 1®' Respondent under Rule 42 of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. After retirement, the Petitioner was sanctioned monthly pension and his retirement benefits were also paid. 3. While so, vide impugned proceedings, a charge memorandum was issued, whereunder a solitary article of charge was framed with regard to proceedings vide Rc.No.215/2018/A A T 4 dated 20.01.2020 issued by the Petitioner, same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Questioning the 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are contrary to Rule 9(2){b) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules has to be considered from the date of incident impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. 1980 as the limit of four years and therefore, the 5. Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government submit that the Petitioner taking note of the fact that he misconduct as the Pleader, would was issued the impugned proceedings, had committed an act of proceedings vide Rc.No.215/2018/A dated 20.01.2020 had issued without reference to the earlier endorsement of the Tahsildar, Rc.No.1246/2012 B dated 04.10.2012. Vizianagaram vide 6. Heard the respective counsel. 7. The article of charge against the Petitioner reads as under; •Thai, Sri G Siva Salyanerayan, Viziar,agarara Mandal. ^<ziar,agaranr D,stria, now retired from service white ^orUmg 3, rshsUsr Vizianagaram has 5 % issued orders for change of classification from ‘Gayalu (Banda)' to ‘Zeroyathi Mettu” in respect of Sy.No.86/5 measuring an extent of A. 5.16 cents under BSO 34(D) vide Proceedings Rc. No. 215/2018/A/Dt. 20.01.2020 of the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram in violation of rules and procedure duly mentioning that he has inspected the land and found that there Is no tank on ground without referring the endorsement issued by the then Tahsildar, Vizianagaram vide Rc.No.1246/2012 B, Dt.04.10.2012 after Inspection that the land in Sy.No. 86/5 Is tank as per the FCO, SFA and FMB as well as on ground." The statement of imputation against the Petitioner also 8. refers to this alleged misconduct only. The allegation as mentioned in the Article of Charge is that the Petitioner has issued a proceeding on 20.01.2020 changing the classification from ‘Gayalu (Banda)’ to 'Zeroyathi Mettu in respect of Sy.No.86/5 admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.16 cents under BSO 34(D) without referring to the endorsement of the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram vide Rc.No.1246/2012 B dated 04.10.2012. As per Rule 9(2)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension 9. Rules, 1980, no disciplinary case can be initiated against a retired employee, with regard to event which is 4 years prior to the 6 institution of disciplinary proceedings. The Rule 9(2)(b)(i)(ii) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules reads as under: \ ‘‘(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 sanction of Government, (ii) shall not be In respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. ” 10. In view of the same, in the present case, the incident occurred on 20.01.2020 and charge memorandum issued on 02.05.2024 is beyond the four year period prescribed under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules. A similar question came up for consideration before the apex Court in the State of U.P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey\ wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with initiation of departmental enquiry against the respondents therein after his retirement from service came up for consideration. As in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, Regulation No.351- A of Civil Services Regulation, was under consideration, and held 11. (1996) 9 see 395 7 that provided that departmental proceedings if not instituted before retirement shall not be instituted in respect of an event which took place much more than four years before the incident as in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed quashing the charge memorandum issued vide G.O.Rt.No.416, Revenue (Vigilance-1) Department, dated 02.05.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-M. SRINIVAS / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTJON OFFICER To, 1. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (Vigilance-111) Secretariat, Velagapudi, Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati. 2. The Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, 1st and 3rd Floor, APIIC Towers, Plot No. 1, IT Partk, Mangalgiri Gunturu District-522503 3. The District Collector, Vizianagaram -535003. 4. One CC to Sri. Harinath Reddy Somagutta Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies gsc \ HIGH COURT DATED:22/09/2025 V \ \ \ \ ORDER WP NO. 25846 OF 2025 0 5 NOV im c> ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS