1 APHC010513872026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY, THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 28064/2026 Between: 1. G R T OM PRAKASH, S/O. G. VENKATESWARA RAO (LATE), AGED 65 YEARS, OCC SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (RETIRED), RAJAHMUNDRY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. R/O. D.NO. 46-13-13, 3RD FLOOR-1, SASWITHA ENCLAVE, NEAR GODAVARI SCREENING CENTRE, DANAVAIPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-533101. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, STATE OF A.P, PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, CRDA, BUILDING, RAYAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237. 3. THE ENQUIRY AUTHORITY/CHIEF ENGINEER, ANDHRA PRADESH URBAN FINANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (APUFIDC), AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237. 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 toissue an order or writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring impugned action of the respondents No.7 8 in interfering with the construction of commercial building activities being carried out by the petitioner in Sy.No. 433/1 for an extent of 35 Square yards, Situated in Pulla Village, Bhimadole Mandal, Eluru District, despite of building permission granted dt. 11-09-2026 by the 8th respondent infavor of petitioner and without issuing any notice and without following due process of law is highly unjust, arbitrary and illegal and violation of Article 21, 300-A of constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents 7 8 not to interfere with the construction of commercial building activities being carried out by the petitioner in Sy.No. 433/1 for an extent of 35 Square yards, Situated in Pulla Village, Bhimadole Mandal, Eluru District, without following due process of law and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Stay of further departmental enquiry against the petitioner by suspend the impugned order vide G.O.Rt.No. 797 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.II) Department dated 25.06.2026 issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV 3 The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 28064/2026 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent-Authorities in issuing the impugned charge memorandum vide G.O.Rt. No. 797, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Vig.II) Department, dated 25.06.2026, and initiating a departmental enquiry against the Petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the year 1987 by way of direct recruitment and was subsequently promoted to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer, and Superintending Engineer in the years 2000, 2012, and 2017, respectively. After serving for more than 34 years, the Petitioner retired from service as Superintending Engineer from Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation on 30.11.2021, upon attaining the age of superannuation. 5 3. While so, a Charge Memorandum was issued to the Petitioner on 25.06.2026 vide G.O.Rt.No.797, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (VIG.II) Department, dated 25.06.2026, with regard to deficiencies in road works. Questioning the impugned Charge Memorandum referred to above, the Writ Petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned Charge Memorandum is contrary to Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, which provides an outer limit of 4 years from the date of incident as the period of limitation within which the Charge Memorandum can be issued and the impugned charge memorandum cannot be sustained as it is issued beyond four years from the date of incident. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services submitted that the impugned charge memorandum is issued against the Petitioner with respect to deficiencies in road works, which were verified by the Petitioner and an enquiry is required to be conducted to arrive at a final conclusion. 6 6. Heard Sri T.S.N. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services. 7. As per Rule 9 (2) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Revision Pension Rules, 1980, the disciplinary enquiry can be initiated within 04 years from the date of the incident. Rule 9 (2) (b) of the A.P. Revision Pension Rules, 1980, reads as under: 9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension : (2) (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; (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. As per the above provision, no enquiry can be initiated against a retired employee with reference to an incident which occurred four years prior to the date of issuance of the Charge Memorandum. In the present case, the allegation is that the Petitioner had verified the estimate and executed the 7 improvement works to BRP Roads, in which deficiencies arose in the Bitumen content and Wet Mix Macadam thickness. The impugned charge memorandum was issued after retirement of Petitioner on 25.06.2026 and there is a delay of more than 04 years in issuing the Charge Memorandum from the date of retirement of Petitioner on 30.11.2021. In view of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of A.P Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the charge memorandum cannot be sustained. 9. In fact, the Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) provides four (04) years as outer limit from the date of event and similar view was taken by 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, wherein it was held that the incident of loss or misconduct should have happened four years from the date of institution of the proceedings. 10. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, with the following directions:- (i). The impugned Charge Memorandum issued vide G.O.Rt.No.797, Municipal Administration and 1(1996) 9 SCC 395 8 Urban Development (VIG.II) Department, dated 25.06.2026 is quashed. (ii). The Respondents shall pay the Retirement Benefits due to the Petitioner. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 01.10.2026 chs 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 90 WRIT PETITION NO.28064/2026 Dated 01.10.2026 chs