APHC010455232026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 24858/2026 Between: 1. TUTIKA MOHAN RAO, S/O CHINNA BABU (LATE), AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RETD.), O/O TW SUB-DIVISION, BHADRAGIRI, PARVATHIPURAM DIVISION, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, R/O. DOOR NO 12-14- 18/13, PADMAVATHI NAGAR, LBS COLONY, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522503, AP. 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, REVENUE COLONY, LABBIPETA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 520010. ...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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to and in connection with the impugned G.O.Rt.No.32, Department of Tribal Welfare (Ser), dt 21.04.2026 and G.O.Rt.No.33, Department of Tribal Welfare (Ser), dt 21.04.2026, issued by the 1st 2 Respondent and set aside the same, by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 AND 16 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and consequently, direct the Respondents to drop further action against the Petitioner and accord and all service and monitory benefits, along with pensionary benefits 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 permit the Petitioner to file, this WP by dispensing with the filing of Original Copies of the impugned G.O.Rt.No.32, Department of Tribal Welfare (Ser), dt: 21.04.2026 and G.O.Rt.No.33, Department of Tribal Welfare (Ser), dt: 21.04.2026, issued by the 1st Respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petitio IA NO: 2 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 all further proceedings by suspending the operation of impugned G.0.Rt.No.32, Department of Tribal Welfare (Ser), dt: 21.04.2026 and G.0.Rt.No.33, Department of Tribal Welfare (Ser), dt: 21.04.2026, issued by the 1st Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.24858 of 2026 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning departmental enquiry initiated against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.32, Department of Tribal Welfare (Ser), dated 21.04.2026 and G.O.Rt.No.33, Department of Tribal Welfare (Ser), dated 21.04.2026 by Respondent No.1, as barred by time and contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 2. The Petitioner retired from his service as Deputy Executive Engineer in the Tribal Welfare Department upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2021. While so, the impugned charge memorandum, dated 21.04.2026 was issued to the Petitioner under Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, on the ground that, while the Petitioner was in service, the Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted a search on the Petitioner with regard to acquisition of disproportionate assets to his known sources of income. Questioning the impugned charge memorandum, the Writ Petition is filed. 3. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned Charge Memorandum is contrary to Rule 9 (2) (b) 4 (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. In this case, the incident occurred in between the years 2016 to 2020 and Charge Memorandum was issued on 21.04.2026, i.e., more than 6 years from the date of incident. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services submitted that the time frame as prescribed under Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules is not actually a bar for initiation of departmental enquiry and in appropriate cases, the department has the power to initiate the departmental enquiry against the delinquent official bypassing the time frame. 5. Heard the counsels. 6. The Petitioner had retired from his service on 31.12.2021. The Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 limits issuance of a charge memorandum to a retired employee regarding any incident that took place more than four years before such an institution. The Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 is extracted below:- 9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension : (2) (b) The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the 5 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. 7. The allegations in the impugned Charge Memorandum issued vide G.O.Rt.No.33, Department of Tribal Welfare (Ser), dated 21.04.2026, pertain to the years 2016 to 2020, as per the statement of imputation. The articles of charge framed against the Petitioner alleged that the Petitioner acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.1,35,12,524.69/- and failed to obtain prior permission from the competent authority for purchasing movable and immovable properties, did not submit annual property returns during the years 1984 to 2020, and did not submit a reply to Forms I to VI served on him through the Superintending Engineer, Tribal Welfare Department, Visakhapatnam. The impugned charge memorandum was issued after retirement of Petitioner on 31.12.2021 and there is a delay of more than 04 years in issuing the Charge Memorandum from the date of retirement of Petitioner on 31.12.2021. In view of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of A.P 6 Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the charge memorandum cannot be sustained. 8. 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. 9. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, with the following directions:- (i). The impugned Charge Memorandum issued vide G.O.Rt.No.32, Department of Tribal Welfare (Ser), dated 21.04.2026 and G.O.Rt.No.33, Department of Tribal Welfare (Ser), dated 21.04.2026 are quashed. (ii). The Respondent-Authorities are directed to pay the Retirement Benefits due to the Petitioner. 10. No order as to costs. 1(1996) 9 SCC 395 7 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 02.09.2026 chs 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 138 WRIT PETITION No.24858 of 2026 Dated: 02.09.2026 chs