APHC010569252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 29797/2025 Between: 1. KARANAM RAGHAVA RAO, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RDD, WD AND CW (RETIRED ), ELURU, FORMER DIRECTOR , DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, AGENCY, SPSR, NELLORE, SPSR, NELLORE DIST, R/O Z.P,COLONY, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE AND DISABLED WELFARE, GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BLOCK NO. -3, A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI-GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE STATE OF A P, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND BLOCK, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 3 3. THE DIRECTOR, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, A.P. , GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, ENQUIRY OFFICER,DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DWCDA, DARGAMITTA, PSSN DISTRICT, NELLORE ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents issuing the G.O.Rt.No.62 dated 30.3.2015 framing the charges against the petitioner and not completing the enquiry on the above charges is as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law. Violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of constitution of India and contrary to the G.O.Ms.679 dated 1.1.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 and set aside the above G.O.Rt.No.62 dated 30.3.2015 issued by the 1st respondent , set aside the above G.O.Rt.No.62 dated 30.3.2015 of respondent No.1 , by considering the final judgment of this Hon’ble court in W.P.No.11090/2025 dated 1.5.2025 and pay the all consequential and attended benefits to the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 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 stay the operation of the G.O.Rt.No.62 dated 30.3.2015 of the 1st respondent and pass IA NO: 2 OF 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 may be pleased to amend the main prayer by deleting the following matter in Para 16 of Main prayer from 8th line “ contrary to the G.O.Ms.679 dated 1.1.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 and set aside the above G.O.Rt.No.62 dated 30.3.2015 issued by the 1st respondent, set aside the above G.O.Rt.No.62 dated 30.3.2015 of respondent No.1 , by considering the final judgment of this Hon’ble court in W.P.No.11090/2025 dated 1.5.2025 and inset the following matter in the above same place “ consequently quash the Charges framed against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.62 dated 30.3.2015 issued by the 1 respondent ” and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V V KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. GP FOR SERVICES II 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.29797 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in issuing G.O.Rt.No.62, dated 30.03.2015, framing charges against the petitioner and in not completing the enquiry on the said charges, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently seeking to quash the charges framed against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.62, dated 30.03.2015, issued by the 1st respondent. 2. The petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2014 while holding the post of Project Director, District Women & Child Development Agency, SPSR Nellore District. Subsequently, the impugned charge memo was issued vide G.O.Rt.No.62, Department for Women, Children, Disabled & Senior Citizens (ESTT.A2), dated 30.03.2015, containing two articles of charge. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations and explaining his innocence. However, the enquiry has remained pending for all these years. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the charge memo. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II submits that the petitioner, in his explanation, had contended that the signature on the alleged memo was forged, and the issue was referred to forensic experts for verification. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent, vide G.O.Rt.No.24, dated 06.02.2018, appointed Sri B. Venkatesam, P.D., Ananthapur, as 5 Enquiry Officer, and Smt. Mamatha, P.D. (FAC), Kadapa, as Presenting Officer under Sub-Rule (18) of Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. As the enquiry could not be concluded, the 1st respondent later appointed the Regional Joint Director, Kurnool, as Enquiry Officer and the DW&CW&EO, Kadapa, as Presenting Officer, vide G.O.Rt.No.105, dated 16.11.2024. The delay was attributed to the forensic department seeking original bills and the petitioner’s signatures for verification of disputed documents. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that steps will be taken to conclude the enquiry. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II. 5. Article of charges against petitioner reads as follows: Article No.I: That Sri K. Raghava Rao, former P.D., DW & CDA, SPSR Nellore, and now retired as R.D.D., WD & CW, Eluru, issued orders in Progs.No.1215/A1/2008-09, dated 20.12.2008, revising the pay of Smt. Ch. Mahalakshmamma, Superintendent (Retd.), Children Home, Sullurpet, Nellore District, on 30.06.2008, without following the prescribed procedure. The orders were issued after her retirement and required sanction of the Head of the Department, as the period of revision of pay scales six years. Hence, Sri K. Raghava Rao acted beyond his powers and violated Rule 3 of the A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964, showing dereliction of legitimate duties. 6 Article No.II: That Sri K. Raghava Rao, former P.D., DW & CDA, SPSR Nellore, and now retired as R.D.D., WD & CW, Eluru, admitted the proposals of three arrear claims of Smt. Ch. Mahalakshmamma, Superintendent (Retd.), Children Home, Sullurpet, Nellore District, for a total amount of Rs.4,18,564/-, and caused loss to the Government by referring to an irrelevant G.O. 28, which does not pertain to Balawadi teachers. Thus, he violated Rule 3 of the A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964, reflecting malafide intention to misguide higher officials for personal gain and exceeded his jurisdiction. 6. Article of Charge II is dependent on Article of Charge I. The said charges pertain to incidents that occurred in 2008, whereas the charge memo was issued on 30.03.2015, almost one year after the petitioner’s retirement. As per Rule 9(2)(b) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, a charge memo can be issued only in respect of incidents which occurred within four years prior to the date of institution of proceedings. 7. Rule 9(2)(b) of the AP Revised Pension Rules reads as follows: (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 7 (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service. 8. In the present case, the event occurred in 2008 and the charge memo was issued in 2015 well beyond the permissible four-year period. Therefore, the charge memo cannot be sustained. Similar view was falledn by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shri Krishna Pandey1. 9. Further, the explanation offered by the respondents for the delay does not reflect any bona fide effort to conclude the enquiry, particularly when the petitioner had already retired on 28.02.2014. The inordinate delay in concluding the proceedings, by itself, vitiates the action. For both these reasons, the charge memo and continuance of disciplinary enquiry is unsustainable. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.62, dated 30.03.2015, is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 06.11.2025 SNI 1 1996 (9) SCC 395 8 133 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.29797 of 2025 Dated: 06.11.2025 SNI