1 APHC010694392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 35680/2025 Between: 1. DESAI SREEDHARA RAO, S/O LATE D. BABU RAO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE R J O FLAT NO.101, R.K ESTATES, B-BLOCK, ROAD NO.2 PHASE-II, KPHB, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 522238 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (VIG.II -AL) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. -522238 3. THE DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND ACCOUNTS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. -522503 4. THE A P VIGILANCE COMMISSION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, GOVT OF A.P, FIRST FLOOR, BUILDING NO.5, A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. - 2 522238 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TBP, HLC CIRCLE, ANANTAPURAMU. DISTRICT. -515001 ...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 toPleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction(s) essentially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O Rt.No.652 and GO.Rt. No. 653 dated.07-12-2023 issued by the 2nd Respondent according sanction to initiate departmental proceedings against me under sub clause -(i) of clause (b) of sub -rule (2) of rule (9) of AP Revised pension rules, 1980 and consequently initiating enquiry in accordance with Rule - 20 of AP Civil Services ( CC and A) Rules 1991 for the charges framed in the Annexure -I of the said GO as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Rule - 9(2) (b) -II of AP Revised Pension Rules 1980 and consequently direct the respondent No. 1 to sanction and pay all the retirement benefits with 12percent interest from the date of retirement and may 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 Pleased to grant interim suspension of G.O Rt.No.652 and GO.Rt. No. 653 dated:07-12-2023 issued by the 2nd Respondent and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARNAM RAMESH 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 35680/2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned orders issued by Respondent No.2 vide G.O.Rt.No.652 Water Resources (VIG.II.(V&E) A.2) Department dated 07.12.2023 and G.O.Rt.No.653 Water Resources (VIG.II.(V&E) A.2) Department dated 07.12.2023, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows: The Petitioner had retired from service as Divisional Accounts Officer Grade in the O/o. Executive Engineer, HLC (LOC) Division, Ananthapur upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2021. 3. While so, departmental proceedings were initiated vide G.O.Rt.No.653 dated 07.12.2023. As per the Charge Memorandum, a solitary article of charge was framed alleging that Petitioner while working as Divisional Accounts Officer, HLC Division had scrutinized and recommended for payment of works 5 bill without obtaining Q.C Certificate from competent authority. The Article of Charge read as under: “That the said Sri D. Sreedhara Rao (Retired), whilefunctioning as Divisional Accounts Officer, HLC Division, Ananthapuram has scrutinized and recommended for payment of work's bills without obtaining QC certificate from the competent authority i.e the Executive Engineer, Quality Control in execution of the work "HLMC-3: Modernization of HLMC from km 130.00 to km 144.00 distributory system", in violation of Government Instructions. Thus he has committed dereliction of duties, amounting to misconduct.” 4. The impugned charge memorandum pertains to the year 2013 as per the Paragraph-(f) of the Statement of imputation. Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P Revised Pension Rules, 1980 prohibits issuance of charge memorandum with regard to the events that had occurred four years prior to the issuance of charge memorandum. Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) 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 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 6 (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. 5. 5. The impugned charge memorandum issued on 07.12.2023 is not in consonance with Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 as highlighted above which states that no charge memorandum for an event that occurred four (04) years prior to the issuance of charge memorandum. In the present case, the alleged event occurred in 2013 and the impugned charge memorandum was issued in 2023 i.e., after a lapse of nearly 10 years. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering a similar provision i.e., Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations in State of U.P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey1, held that the incident of loss or misconduct should have happened four years from the date of institution of the proceedings. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below; “But the events of misconduct etc. which may have resulted in the loss to the Government or embezzlement, i.e., 1(1996) 9 SCC 395 7 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.” 7. In view of the above, no enquiry can be initiated against a retired employee with reference to the incident which is four years prior to the date of issuance of the Charge Memorandum. As stated supra, the Charge Memorandum was issued on 07-12- 2023 with reference to incidents that occurred in the year 2013. 8. Therefore, the writ petition allowed with following directions:- (i). The impugned Charge Memorandum issued vide G.O.Rt.No.652 Water Resources (VIG.II.(V&E) A.2) Department dated 07.12.2023 and G.O.Rt.No.653 Water Resources (VIG.II.(V&E)A.2) Department dated 07.12.2023 are quashed. (ii). Respondents shall pay the Retirement Benefits due to the Petitioner. (iii). There shall be no order as to costs. 8 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 22.12.2025 chs 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 217 WRIT PETITION NO.35680/2025 Dated 22.12.2025 chs