Judgment : R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the respondents in OANo.6097 of 2009 aggrieved of order dated 5.7.2012, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, allowing the said O.A., filed by the 1st respondent herein under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, by setting aside the order dated 6.4.2009 passed in G.O. Rt. No.285 Higher Education (VC.II) Department, by which the punishment of withholding of pension, gratuity in full permanently, besides recovery of Rs.1,69,160/-, is ordered against 1st respondent herein. 2. The 1st respondent-applicant was working as Prinicipal in Government Junior College for Girls, waddepally and retired from service on 30.6.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and charge memo dated 20.9.1999 was issued by framing two charges. It is alleged in the first charge that while working as Principal during the year 1998-99, he has violated the orders of the competent authority and collected money from the students irrationally. Second charge is that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,69,100/- in the name of Part-Time Junior Lecturers without extracting work. On completion of enquiry in the disciplinary preceedings, show-cause notice dated 7.5.2005 was issued by the Government directing him to show-cause as to why penalty of 2% cut in pension for a period of two years besides recovery of Rs.1,69,160/-should not be imposed on him. He submitted explanation but no final orders are passed in the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, further show-cause notice is issued on 5.3.2007 to show-cause as to why the penalty of withholding of entire pensionary benefits, i.e., withholding of entire pension and gratuity permanently besides recovery of Rs.1,69,160/-, should not be imposed. He filed explanation to the said show-cause notice. Thereafter, final orders are passed vide G.O. Rt. No.285 Higher Education (VC.II) Department dated 6.4.2009 imposing on him the punishment of withholding of pension, gratuity in full permanently, besides recovery of Rs.1,69,160/-. 3. Against the said order, the 1st respondent-applicant has filed the O.A. in question before the Tribunal. It was his case before the Tribunal that the order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the Government is contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 3. Against the said order, the 1st respondent-applicant has filed the O.A. in question before the Tribunal. It was his case before the Tribunal that the order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the Government is contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. It was his further case that the charge memo was issued under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and the same are not applicable in view of his retirement from service, on 30.6.1999. It was also his case that having issued show-cause notice on 7.5.2005 proposing to impose penalty of 2% cut in pension, the authorities are not empowered to issue further notice proposing to modify the punishment to that of withholding entire pensionary benefits, i.e., withholding of entire pension and gratuity permanently besides recovery of Rs.1,69,160/-. The Tribunal by recording a finding that the procedure adopted by the petitioners herein is contrary to Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and serious procedural irregularity is committed in the disciplinary procedure and further recording a finding that no powers are conferred on the authorities to issue second show-cause notice without cancelling the first show-cause notice dated 7.5.2005, allowed the application, by the impugned order and set aside the order dated 6.4.2009 passed in G.O. Rt. No.285 Higher Education (VC.II) Department. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the petitioners and Sri M. Ratna Reddy learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. 5. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for the petitioners that after completion of the enquiry, before passing final orders, show-cause notice is issued by the Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is violation of the provision under Rule 9 of the Rules. In view of the fact that further final orders are passed by the Government after issuing show-cause notice, the same would amount to grant of sanction by the authorities. In view of the serious nature of charges framed against the first respondent-applicant and in the absence of establishing the prejudice caused to the respondent-applicant, merely on the ground that there is violation of the provision under Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the Tribunal erred in interfering with the order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the Government. 6. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that the very basis for initiating the proceedings is void ab initio inasmuch as there is no sanction as contemplated under Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. It is further submitted that prior sanction of the Government is a safeguard to the retired employees and no disciplinary proceedings can be instituted without the prior sanction of the Government. It is further submitted that there is abnormal and inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners in conducting enquiry proceedings; as such there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same. 7. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-applicant that, on similar set of charges, the 1st respondent-applicant was prosecuted for the alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 409 IPC and the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal, by judgment dated 8.11.2010 passed vide CC No.901 of 2002, has recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the 1st respondent-applicant, as such, he was acquitted from the charges framed against him; in that view of the matter and in view of the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. 8. In this writ petition, it is not in dispute that the respondent-applicant retired from service on 30.6.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is well settled that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings would commence with issuance of charge memo. 8. In this writ petition, it is not in dispute that the respondent-applicant retired from service on 30.6.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is well settled that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings would commence with issuance of charge memo. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Rule 9(2)(b) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which reads as follows: “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.” 9. From the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that if the departmental proceedings are not instituted while the Government servant was in service, it is not open to institute such proceedings at all, save with the sanction of Government. Though it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for the petitioners that in view of the subsequent show-cause notice and final orders passed by the Government it cannot be said that there is no sanction, it is to be seen that the show-cause notice for passing final orders in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be equated to sanction as contemplated under Rule 9 (2)(b) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The sanction, as required, should be obtained before instituting disciplinary proceedings and the same is clear from a bare reading of the aforesaid Rule itself. Hence, the submission of the learned Government pleader for the petitioners that in view of the subsequent show-cause notice and final orders passed by the Government it cannot be said that there is no sanction, cannot be countenanced. Further, it cannot also be said that no prejudice is caused to the respondent-applicant. Prior sanction is contemplated in the Rules, only to safeguard the retired employees from indiscriminate initiation of disciplinary proceedings, irrespective of the gravity of charges. Further, it cannot also be said that no prejudice is caused to the respondent-applicant. Prior sanction is contemplated in the Rules, only to safeguard the retired employees from indiscriminate initiation of disciplinary proceedings, irrespective of the gravity of charges. The question whether the charges framed against a delinquent are grave enough to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him, or not, is required to be considered by the Government when its permission is sought for initiation of such proceedings. The subsequent notice or orders passed by the Government cannot cure the defect of violation of the provision under Rule 9(2)(b) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Disciplinary action against Government servants is governed by A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and the said Rules are not applicable to the employees after their retirement from service. If any proceedings are to be initiated against the retired employees, authorities are empowered to initiate such proceedings only under Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, but not under the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Further, in this case, it is to be noticed that though proceedings were initiated by issuing charge memo on 30.9.1999, there is abnormal and unexplained delay of 10 years in passing final orders from the stage of issuing charge memo. At the same time, it is to be seen that basing on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, first show-cause notice was issued on 7.5.2005 proposing to impose penalty of 2% cut in pension. In spite of the respondent-applicant filing explanation, no further orders are passed and nearly two years thereafter another show-cause notice is issued on 5.3.2007. From that itself, it is clear that there is laxity on the part of the disciplinary authority in dealing with the proceedings. Further, abnormal and unexplained delay is also a ground to annul the very proceedings. As the 1st respondent-applicant has retired from service in the year 1999 and is now aged about 70 years, in view of the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order, and further, in the absence of sanction as contemplated under Rule 9(2)(b) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him, we are of the considered view that there are no merits in this writ petition so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Further, it is also to be noticed that on similar set of charges, the 1st respondent-applicant was prosecuted for the alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 409 IPC and the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal, by judgment dated 8.11.2010 passed vide CC No.901 of 2002, has recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the 1st respondent-applicant; as such, he was acquitted from the charges framed against him. Taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, we do not see any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.