1 APHC010109352026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 6201/2026 Between: 1. P.PRASAD,, S/0 SRI LATE P.GATTAPPA, AGED 65 YEARS, RETIRED AS DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, D.NO 13-2-46- 13,RAMACHANDRA NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI- 522237 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF ADMIN, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, JALASOUDA, IRRIGATION COMPOUND, GOVERNOR PETA, VIJAYAWADA - 520002 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SARMA C V S S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.6201 of 2026 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….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.44 and G.O.Rt.No.45, Water Resources (Vig.ll V & E) Dept, dated 03-02-2023 issued by the 2nd respondent inflicting against the petitioner herein, for the incident related to 2016, 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 SCC 395 and quash 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 in W.P.No.11685 of 2025 dated 05-05-2025.….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was retired on 30.06.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. However, the respondents have initiated 4 departmental proceedings vide G.O.Rt.Nos.44 and 45, dated 03.02.2023, in respect of a cause of action arose on 06.05.2016. The same is contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, „the Rules‟). Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules provides that the departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. Here, the respondents have initiated departmental proceedings vide G.O.Rt.Nos.44 and 45, dated 03.02.2023, pertaining to an incident took place on 06.05.2016 i.e., beyond the four years limitation prescribed under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an identical issue was considered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Shri Krishna Pandey1 and also by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.453 of 2021 and batch, dated 16.09.2021. 1 (1996) 9 SCC 395 5 5. Reply to the said contentions, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, based on the instructions furnished by the Engineer-in-Chief (Admn.)(FAC), Water Resources Department, dated 05.03.2026, submitted that basing on the grave irregularities and loss caused to the Government exchequer, the Government has considered the matter and framed charges against the petitioner vide impugned G.O.Rt.Nos.44 and 45. In fact, the Vigilance and Enforcement Department established the irregularities vide its report dated 19.03.2021. As per the said report, deficiencies and financial loss caused to the Government exchequer were pointed out. 6. The learned Government Pleader further brought to the notice of the Court that certain other charges are also pending against the petitioner, which were issued vide G.O.Rt.Nos.255 and 254, dated 30.07.2024 and the same are inconformity with the provisions of the Rules. 7. Reply to the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders only on the ground that the same are contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules and that insofar as the other charges are 6 concerned, the petitioner will participate in the proceedings in accordance with the procedure. 8. Considering the submissions, on perusal of the record and in view of the observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as well as the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned orders issued vide G.O.Rt.Nos.44 and 45, dated 03.02.2023, as the same are contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules and the observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 06.03.2026 Ivd 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.6201 of 2026 Dated: 06.03.2026 Ivd