APHC010025732026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1725/2026 Between: 1. P NAGENDRA PRASAD, S/O. LATE P. KONDAIAH, AGED 66 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (RETIRED), O/O. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT. R/O. H. NO. 4-2-740-24, RAJAHAMSA BLT VILLAS TIRUMALANAGAR, NEAR BELLARY BYPASS, ANANTAPURAMU ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. PIN-515004. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAX) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522502. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE OF A.P., KUNCHANAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522501 ...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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the 1st respondent to initiated Departmental proceedings vide G.O.R.t No. 532 Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department dated. 05.08.2024 and Consequential Charge Memo Vide G.O.R.t No. 533 Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department dated. 05.08.2024 even though pendency of criminal case on same charge 2 VS,J W.P.No.1725 of 2026 vide C.C. No. 15 of 2022 on the file of Honble Special Judge for Trail of SPE ACB Cases at Kurnool is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, without jurisdiction and contrary to Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and contrary to orders of this Honble Court and violation of Article 14, 16 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation Principles of Natural Justice and set aside the same and to pass 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 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit. It is further prayed that that this Honble Court may be pleased to stay of further departmental enquiry against the petitioner by suspend the impugned orders vide G.O.R.t No. 532 Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department dated. 05.08.2024 and Consequential Charge Memo Vide G.O.R.t No. 533 Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department dated. 05.08.2024 issued by the 1st respondent pending criminal case vide C.C. No. 15 of 2022 before the Honble Special Judge for trial of SPE ACB cases at Kurnool pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.1725 of 2026 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 1st respondent to initiate Departmental proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.532 Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department dated 05.08.2024 and Consequential Charge Memo Vide G.O.Rt.No.533 Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department dated 05.08.2024 even though pendency of criminal case on same charge vide C.C.No.15 of 2022 on the file of Hon’ble Special Judge for Trail of SPE & ACB Cases at Kurnool is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, without jurisdiction and contrary to Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and contrary to orders of this Hon’ble Court and violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of Principles of Natural Justice and set aside the same ….” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (ACTO), through direct recruitment by the APPSC in the year 1995. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (DCTO) in the year 2005 and subsequently promoted as Assistant Commissioner of State Tax in the year 2015. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2020 while working as Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. b) While the petitioner was working as Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Kurnool-I Circle, Kurnool, a case was registered against him by the ACB 4 VS,J W.P.No.1725 of 2026 authorities under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide Crime No.16/RCT-KNL/2018, dated 08.12.2018. On account of the said criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension and subsequently reinstated into service pending criminal proceedings. c) While so, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.532, Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department, dated 05.08.2024, initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, and consequential Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.533, dated 05.08.2024, under the provisions of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 26.10.2024 contending that the charge memo was issued after lapse of more than four years from the date of the alleged incident i.e., 07.12.2018 and therefore, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings is contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 3. The 1st respondent has furnished a copy of instructions of the Secretary to the Chief Commissioner (ST), dated 04.05.2026, reiterating the fact as stated by the petitioner. However, it is admitted that the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2020 and that departmental proceedings were initiated on 05.08.2024 vide G.O.Rt.No.532, Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department, dated 05.08.2024, and Articles of Charge were issued vide G.O.Rt.No.533/535, dated 05.08.2024. Thereafter, the Government, vide Memo No.REV01/CCST0CCTV(ACBC)/4/2018-VIG-II, called for a written statement 5 VS,J W.P.No.1725 of 2026 of defence from the Charged Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.10.2024. Subsequently, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1250, dated 13.10.2025, appointed one Sri A.Ravindranath Reddy, Joint Commissioner, as Inquiry Officer, and vide G.O.Rt.No.1251, dated 13.10.2025, appointed Sri M.Srinivasulu, Inspector of Police, ACB as Presenting Officer. It is stated that the enquiry is in progress and therefore, sought dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 4. On a perusal of the above stated facts, it can be observed that admittedly the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2020. Thereafter, the respondents initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.532, Revenue (Vigilance-VI), Department, dated 05.08.2024, and issued consequential charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.533, dated 05.08.2024, under the provisions of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. Admittedly, the alleged incident pertains to 07.12.2018 and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after lapse of more than four years from the date of the alleged incident. Therefore, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings is contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 6 VS,J W.P.No.1725 of 2026 5. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Rule 9(2)(a), (b)(i) and (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which reads as under: (2)(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule(1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. (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 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court passed in W.P.Nos.14754 and 16920 of 2024, dated 10.02.2025, wherein, under similar circumstances, charge memos issued after a lapse of four years from the date of the alleged incident were quashed by this Court by applying Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 6. Having regard to the admitted facts and in view of the specific prohibition under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned 7 VS,J W.P.No.1725 of 2026 proceedings initiated against the petitioner after lapse of more than four years from the date of the alleged incident are unsustainable in law. 7. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and following the common order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.14754 and 16920 of 2024, dated 10.02.2025, the Writ Petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated vide G.O.Rt.No.532, Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department, dated 05.08.2024, and consequential Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.533, Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department, dated 05.08.2024, are hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to release the provisional pension benefits due to the petitioner forthwith, in accordance with the Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. No costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated 05.05.2026 KGR