ORDER : S.R. Nayak, J. A retired employee, the petitioner herein has assailed the validity of the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 22-7-1999 made in O.A. No. 532 of 1997. 2. The background facts leading to the filing of this writ petition be noted briefly as under: 3. When the petitioner was serving as Executive Engineer in Naidupet Division, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-12-1989. After his retirement, the Department in respect of certain lapses alleged to have been committed by the petitioner relating to the period from 20-12-1985 to 31-7-1987, thought it appropriate to initiate departmental proceedings under Rule-9 of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short 'the Rules'). Accordingly, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 169, TR & B (S.1.2) Department dated 23-6-1990 appointing one Mr. Balakrishna Reddy, the then Superintending Engineer, as the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter the said Enquiry Officer framed charges against the petitioner vide Charge Memo dated 7-12-1990 and after conducting enquiry, submitted his report on 13-5-1991. On the basis of that Enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 22-10-1992 and the petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice on 18-12-1992. When the matter stood thus, the Disciplinary Authority without passing final order in the enquiry already conducted by it in pursuance of the Charge Memo dated 7-12-1990, in its wisdom and discretion thought it fit to conduct a de novo enquiry by appointing one Sri P.R. Rama Raju, the then Chief Engineer (R&B) ADB & CAD, as the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly the Government issued G.O.Rt.No. 1068, TR&B Department dated 15-11-1993 appointing the said P.V. Rama Raju as the Enquiry Officer. The said Enquiry Officer issued a Charge Memo to the petitioner on 11-3-1994 framing charges against the petitioner and after conducting enquiry, he submitted his report on 6-6-1994 recording the finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against him. The Disciplinary authority on consideration of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer issued a show-cause notice on 30-8-1994 and the petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show-cause notice on 26-9-1994. On consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Government not being satisfied with the same, issued G.O.Rt. No. 1227 TR&B (Ser. The Disciplinary authority on consideration of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer issued a show-cause notice on 30-8-1994 and the petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show-cause notice on 26-9-1994. On consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Government not being satisfied with the same, issued G.O.Rt. No. 1227 TR&B (Ser. 1.2) Department dated 10-12-1996 imposing a punishment of withholding of full pension and D.C.R.G. permanently to the petitioner in terms of the power available to it under Rule 9(1) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 4. The petitioner aggrieved by the said Government Order, instituted O.A.No. 532 of 1997 before the Tribunal assailing the validity of the same. The petitioner among other grounds contended that the initiation of the departmental proceedings in pursuance of the Charge Memo dated 11-3-1994 is one without any authority of law and barred by Rule 9 of the Revised Pension Rules. It was also contended by the petitioner that the impugned order of the Government is otherwise vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as he was not supplied with the list of witnesses examined on behalf of the disciplinary authority. Thirdly, it was contended that the order of the Government is not a speaking order, inasmuch as it does not disclose any reason in support of its decision. 5. Although the learned Tribunal at page-6 of its order rightly pointed out that the point for its consideration is 'whether the enquiry ordered vide G.O.Rt.No. 1068 TR & B Department dated 15-11-1993 is de novo enquiry or not; that question is not at all answered by the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal accepting the other contentions of the petitioner thought it appropriate to set aside the impugned Government Order and remanded the proceedings to the Disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry in accordance with Rule 22 of the A.P. CCA Rules by its judgment dated 22-7-1999. Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the same. 6. However, the learned Tribunal accepting the other contentions of the petitioner thought it appropriate to set aside the impugned Government Order and remanded the proceedings to the Disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry in accordance with Rule 22 of the A.P. CCA Rules by its judgment dated 22-7-1999. Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the same. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to Rule-9 of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980, would point out that since the impugned order of the Government dated 10-12-1996 is the culmination of the Charge Memo dated 11-3-1994, it should be held that the 'departmental proceedings' instituted on 11-3-1994 are within the meaning of that term as defined in Clause (a) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Rules. The learned Counsel would also contend that the earlier departmental proceeding instituted by issuing the Charge Memo on 7-12-1990 was actually abandoned and no order was passed by the disciplinary authority. 7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State authorities would maintain that though sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Rules speaks about the departmental proceedings and commencement of such proceedings with reference to a particular date, that provision should be understood and interpreted in the context of the disciplinary power vested in the State Government under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Rules. The learned Advocate General would maintain that simply because the Government did not pass orders after receipt of the Enquiry report from the former Enquiry Officer and thought it fit to continue the proceedings by appointing there Enquiry Officer, from that circumstance, it cannot be inferred that the Government had abandoned the earlier departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner on 7-12-1990. In other words, what the learned Advocate General would attempt to impress upon us is that the departmental proceedings in the context of the Rule 9 is a process by which an erring official is brought to book and punished. In other words, what the learned Advocate General would attempt to impress upon us is that the departmental proceedings in the context of the Rule 9 is a process by which an erring official is brought to book and punished. The learned Advocate General would maintain that in the instant case, admittedly the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Government by issuing the Charge Memo on 7-12-1990, that is to say, very much within the period of four years as stipulated under sub-rule (2) (b)(ii) of Rule 9 of the Rules, because the lapses attributed to the petitioner related to the period from 20-12-1985 to 31-7-1987, and that the subsequent steps taken by the Government in appointing Sri P.V. Rama Raju as the Enquiry Officer in place of Sri S. Balakrishna Reddy and continuation of the disciplinary proceedings by him should be treated to be a step forward in the course of the disciplinary proceedings. 8. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court that in the absence of statutory Rules governing the conduct of disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary proceedings begin with issuance of a Charge Memo and terminate with the passing of appropriate final order by the disciplinary authority. Rule 9 of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 reads as under: 9. Rule 9 of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 reads as under: 9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw Pension:- (1) The State Government reserves themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused, to the Government and to the local authority if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pension is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement: Provided that the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed; Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 45; (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: Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the State Government, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the State Government. Note:- The function of the disciplinary authority is only to reach a finding on the charges and to submit a report recording its findings to the Government. It is then for the Government to consider the findings and take final decision under this rule. In case Government decide to take action under this rule in the light of the findings of the disciplinary authority, the Government will serve the person concerned with the show-cause notice specifying the action proposed to be taken under this rule and the person concerned will be required to submit his reply to the show-cause notice within such time as may be specified by the Government. The Government will consider the reply and consult the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, if as a result of such consideration proceedings will be issued in the name of the Government. (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment; (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. (3) (xxxx) (Omitted by G.O.Ms.No. 302 Fin. dated 30-8-1994) (4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in Rule 52 shall be sanctioned; (5) Where the State Government decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant; (6) For the purpose of this rule- (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date, and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date, the plaint is presented in the Court. 9. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Rules grants the power to the State Government of withholding pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period etc., in any departmental or judicial proceedings. 9. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Rules grants the power to the State Government of withholding pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period etc., in any departmental or judicial proceedings. Sub-rules (2) to (6) of Rule 9 of the Rules limits and circumscribes the power of the State Government in imposing the penalties contemplated under sub-rule (1). For our purpose sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Rules is relevant. The language employed in sub-rule (6) in our considered opinion is quite plain, clear, precise and it does not admit any ambiguity or more than one meaning. The clear intendment of the Rule is that the departmental proceedings should be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charge is issued to the delinquent official or the pensioner as the case may be. 10. It is trite that the Government passed the impugned order in G.O.Rt.No. 1227 TR & B Department dated 10-12-1996 on the basis of the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, in pursuance of a departmental proceeding commenced in pursuance of the Charge Memo issued by the Enquiry Officer P.V. Rama Raju on 11-3-1994. In other words, the Government Order in G.O.Rt. No. 1227 TR & B Department dated 10-12-1996 cannot be said to be the culmination of the Charge memo issued by the earlier Enquiry Officer Sri S. Balakrishna Reddy on 7-12-1990. If that is the only reasonable way of construing the Rule, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Advocate General. Because, we do not find any controversy between the parties on facts. The hard fact is that the lapse or lapses attributed to the petitioner-pensioner related to the period from 20-12-1985 to 31-7-1987 and this fact is also evident from the Charge Memo itself. If that is so, the institution of the departmental proceedings by issuing the Charge Memo on 11-3-1994 would be beyond the prescribed limit of four years as prescribed under sub-rule (2)(b)(ii) of Rule 9 of the Rules. 11. In addition to it, the concept of abandonment of a charge is not something strange or unknown in Service Law. If that is so, the institution of the departmental proceedings by issuing the Charge Memo on 11-3-1994 would be beyond the prescribed limit of four years as prescribed under sub-rule (2)(b)(ii) of Rule 9 of the Rules. 11. In addition to it, the concept of abandonment of a charge is not something strange or unknown in Service Law. Here is a case where the Government after instituting the disciplinary proceedings by appointing an Enquiry Officer and issuing the Charge memo as far back as on 7-12-1990 and after virtually completing the enquiry and issuing the show-cause notice and after receipt of the reply from the petitioner-pensioner, for the reasons best known to it, did not think it appropriate to pass final order, and on the other hand thought it necessary to institute a de novo departmental proceeding against the petitioner and that intention of the Government is fully reflected in G.O.Rt.No. 1068, TR & B (S.I) Department dated 15-11-1993. Therefore, now it is not permissible for the State Government to contend that even the institution of the departmental proceeding commenced in pursuance of the Charge Memo dated 11-3-1994 is nothing but continuation or part of the departmental proceedings initiated by it in pursuance of the earlier Charge Memo dated 7-12-1990. If this contention of the Government is accepted, it would clearly offend the plain and clear intendment of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules. 12. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition and set aside the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 22-7-1999 and allow O.A. No. 532 of 1997 and quash G.O.Rt.No. 1227 TR & B (SER.1-2) Department dated 10-12-1996. The respondents are directed to settle the pensionary claims of the petitioner, if not already done, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.