1 APHC010702612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 36482/2025 Between: 1. V RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O. SRI V. SOMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC RETIRED ADDITIONAL MISSION DIRECTOR, MEPMA, GUNTUR, RIO. D. NO. 16B-16/1-76/2, CHANDRAGUPTA COLONY, ELURU - 534005,ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. --3 2. 2. THE MISSION FOR ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN MUNICIPAL AREAS MEPMA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, BESIDE D-MART BUILDING SERVICE ROAD, KUNCHANAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 2 Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner after his retirement by issuance of G.O. Rt. No.483 dated 14.07.2022 and in imposing punishment of withholding 3percent of pension for a period of two years vide G.O.Rt.No.602 dated 07.08.2024, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and opposed to the principles of natural justice, set aside the same and direct the Respondents to forthwith restore the full pension of 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AISHWARYA NAGULA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No. 36482 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of Respondent No.1 in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner after his retirement by issuing G.O.Rt.No.483 dated 14.07.2022 and imposing punishment of withholding 3% of pension for a period of two years vide G.O.Rt.No.602 dated 07.08.2024 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows: Petitioner was appointed as Municipal Commissioner, Grade-III after due selection through APPSC and joined as such on 05.02.1990 and reached up to the cadre of Regional Director. On attaining the superannuation, the Petitioner was retired from service on 31.07.2018 as Regional Director. While so, charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.483 dated 14.07.2022 was issued and served on the Petitioner on 12.09.2022 i.e. more than four years after the date of his retirement. 4 3. The Article of charge pertains to alleged misconduct between 1991 and 2002 i.e. 20 years prior to the date of issuance of the charge memo. Two Articles of Charges were framed against the Petitioner, which reads as under: CHARGE-1: That Sri Vuchula Rajendra Prasad (now retired) failed to obtain prior permission as well as to give intimation subsequently to the competent authority pertaining to acquisition of Immovable / movable assets and violated Rule 9 (1) & (2) of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 r/w Rule 9 of AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980. CHARGE-2: L That the Government Servant (now retired) falled to submit his Annual Property Returns to the competent authority at the end of every year during 1991 to 2002 and there by violated Rule 9 (7) of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 4. Consequent to the enquiry, the Petitioner was imposed punishment of withholding 3% of pension for a period of two years vide G.O.Rt.No.602 dated 07.08.2024. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 5. The only ground urged by the Petitioner is 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 5 years from the date of incident as the period of limitation within which the Charge Memorandum can be issued. In this case, the incident occurred in between the years 1991 and 2002 and Charge Memorandum was issued on 14.07.2022, i.e., more than 20 years from the date of incident. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on instructions, does not dispute the time gap in between the occurrence of incident and issuance of charge memorandum against the Petitioner. 7. Heard Sri Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 8. As per Rule 9 (2)(b)(ii) 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 6 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. 9. As per the above provision, 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. The impugned charge memorandum was issued after retirement of Petitioner on 14.07.2022. There is a delay of 20 years in issuing the Charge Memorandum to the Petitioner from the date of incident. 10. 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; 1(1996) 9 SCC 395 7 “But the events of misconduct etc. which may have resulted in the loss to the Government or embezzlement, i.e., 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.” 11. As stated supra, the Charge Memorandum was issued on 14.07.2022 with reference to incidents that occurred in between the years 1991 to 2002 and the same cannot be sustained. 12. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with following directions:- (i) The impugned Charge Memorandum issued vide G.O.Rt.No.483 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.I) Department dated 14.07.2022 and the consequential punishment vide G.O.Rt.No.602 MA&UD(Vig.I) Department, dated 07.08.2024 are set aside. (ii) There shall be no order as to costs. 8 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 06.01.2026 KLP