1 APHC010366932026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 20007/2026 Between: 1. K NAGARAJU, S/O SIVANNA, AGED 65 YEARS, RIO H.NO. 4-169, ATMAKUR, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-515751 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, B.C. WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF B C WELFARE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VISHAL RESIDENCY, TADIGADAPA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT-521134. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (BC) WELFARE, ANANTHAPURAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515001 4. THE DISTRICT B C WELFARE AND EMPOWERMENT OFFICER, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT-515001. 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 27, MG RD, GOVERNOR PETA VIJAYAWADA, A. P-520002 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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.19, B.C.W.(D) Department, dated 29.01.2024, , as illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable, being contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said charge memo and further declare the action of the respondents in withholding the petitioners full pension, arrears thereof, and other retiral benefits as illegal, irregular and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioners full pension as per his eligibility and entitlement, along with all arrears and attendant service and retiral benefits, with interest and 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 pleased to STAY all further proceedings pursuant to the charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.19, B.C.W.(D) Department, dated 29.01.2024, , as illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable, being contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUDHESHNA YAKKALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 3 The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 20007/2026 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent-Authorities in issuing the charge memorandum vide G.O.Rt.No.19, B.C.W.(D) Department, dated 29.01.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner had retired from his service as Hostel Welfare Officer, Government B.C. Boys Hostel, Madhudi Village, Agali Mandal, Ananthapuramu upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2021. 3. While so, departmental proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.19, Backward Classes Welfare (D) Department, dated 29.01.2024. As per the Charge Memorandum, 11 Articles of Charge were framed against the Petitioner and the same reads as under:- “Charge - 1: That the Government Servant misappropriated diet charges amount of Rs. 75,216/- by him by showing excess and false attendance of boarders in the Hostel Attendance Register for the period from 12.06.2019 to 19.12.2019. 5 Charge - 2: That the Government Servant shows 1861 excess days as false attendance of the boarders of the BC welfare Hostel for Boys, Madhudi village, Agali Mandal, Ananthapuramu District from 12.06.2019 to 19.12.2019. Charge - 3: That the Government Servant is in the habit of marking attendance on the next day. He failed to mark the attendance register of Boarders on the day of Surprise Check and further he marked attendance of the boarders in the month of September 2019 up to 27.09.2019 only. Charge - 4: That the Government Servant did not form the Mess Committee and thereby not obtained signatures of the Mess Committee members in Daily Stock and Issue Register. Charge - 5: That the Government Servant does not maintain proper lighting in the Hostel rooms for the students to read and write and did not maintain the dining hall and food service and dining is being done at the open place of the Hostel and not maintained hygienic conditions in the bathrooms and toilets which are not fit for use thereby the boarders are forced to get out into open area for answering calls of nature and the backside premises of the Hostel are also not hygienic and further the lavatories are not sufficient and he has not informed to his superiors about the shortages of the lavatories. Charge - 6: That the Government Servant has not maintained the progress reports for marks of each border. Charge - 7: That the Government Servant has not maintained the border's health card and also the First Aid box to treat the borders in case of emergency. Charge - 8: The HWO Sri K. Nagaraju (SO-1) has not maintained a notice board displaying the names of higher authorities along with their phone numbers anywhere in the Hostel premises for facilitating the boarders in contacting higher authorities in case of any grievance. Charge - 9: That the Government Servant failed to explain with respect to the variations of stocks in the form of deficits/excesses with the book balance of stocks. Charge - 10: That the Government Servant has not maintained the border's admission Register, Vendors acquaintance Register up to date. Charge - 11: That the Government Servant has not maintained the Inspection Register, Contingent bill Register, Daily Purchase Register, the boarders Signature register, and the Boarders Signature Register.” 6 4. Though there is lack of specifics with regard to date to which some of the articles of charge pertain, but, the statement of imputation makes it explicit that all the charges pertain to the period up to December, 2019. As mentioned above, the Petitioner had retired from service on 31.05.2021. 5. Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P Revised Pension Rules, 1980 prohibits issuance of charge memorandum with regard to the events that had occurred four years prior to the issuance of charge memorandum. Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) reads as under: (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 (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. 6. 6. The impugned charge memorandum issued on 29.01.2024 is not in consonance with Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 as highlighted above which states that no 7 charge memorandum for an event that occurred four (04) years prior to the issuance of charge memorandum. In the present case, the alleged event occurred in 2019 and the impugned charge memorandum was issued in 2024 i.e., after a lapse of more than four (04) years. 7. 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; “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.” 8. In view of the above, no enquiry can be initiated against a retired employee with reference to the incident which is four years 1(1996) 9 SCC 395 8 prior to the date of issuance of the Charge Memorandum. As stated supra, the Charge Memorandum was issued on 29-01- 2024 with reference to incidents that occurred in the year 2019. 9. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, with the following directions:- (i). The impugned Charge Memorandum issued vide G.O.Rt.No.19, Backward Classes Welfare (D) Department, dated 29.01.2024 is quashed. (ii). The Respondent-Authorities shall pay the Retirement Benefits due to the Petitioner. (iii). There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 09.09.2026 chs 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 120 WRIT PETITION NO.20007/2026 Dated 09.09.2026 chs