JUDGMENT A. Shankar Narayana, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in O.A. No.2360 of 2011, which was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, aggrieved of the order dated 31-07-2012, passed therein, by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal). 2. In the aforesaid O.A., the 1st respondent, who filed the O.A., sought to set aside the Memos issued in G.O. Rt. No.784, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (E1) Department, dated 20-06-2007, and G.O. Rt. No.794, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (E1) Department, dated 21-06-2007, declaring the same as void, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short “the Rules 1980”) and to pay all the pensionary benefits with interest from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment, is made. 3. 1st respondent retired from service on 31-03-2008 as Town Planning Officer (Special Grade). He was initially appointed as Building Inspector, as direct recruitee, on 22-07-1974, and promoted as Town Planning Supervisor and Town Planning Officer (Ordinary Grade), and further promoted as Town Planning Officer (Special Grade) in the years 1983, 1991 and 2000, respectively. He worked as Town Planning Officer (Ordinary Grade) in Warangal Municipal Corporation from 11-05-1998 to 04-07-2000, and on his promotion as Town Planning Officer (Special Grade), he worked in Machilipatnam Municipality from 30-09-2001 to 28-01-2007. It is stated that he went on leave from 23-11-2004 to 13-10-2005. It is stated that when his pensionary benefits were not released, he approached the 2nd petitioner herein, and when requested for release of his pensionary benefits, the 2nd petitioner issued a copy of the letter dated 24-12-2010 intimating that two impugned charge memos were pending against him. He claimed that he has not received any charge memos till 21-11-2011, and when charge memos were served on him on 21-11-2011, other documents relied on for framing the charges against him were not furnished. The said two charge memos framed against him relate to the period from 11-05-1998 to 04-07-2000 when he worked at Warangal, and 30-09-2001 to 28-01-2007 when he worked in Machilipatnam Municipality respectively. 4. The 2nd petitioner filed counter on his behalf and on behalf of the other petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein. The said two charge memos framed against him relate to the period from 11-05-1998 to 04-07-2000 when he worked at Warangal, and 30-09-2001 to 28-01-2007 when he worked in Machilipatnam Municipality respectively. 4. The 2nd petitioner filed counter on his behalf and on behalf of the other petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein. It is stated that the 1st petitioner framed charges against the 1st respondent, along with 6 others, in G.O. Rt. No.784, MA&UD (E1), dated 20-06-2007, for their alleged involvement in encroachment of Rajupeta Dumping Yard, in Machilipatnam Municipality. The charge memo was sent for communication by the office of the 2nd petitioner vide endorsement dated 04-07-2007, by registered post with acknowledgement due, through the Deputy Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Circle of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (for short “GHMC”), and postal acknowledgement was received from the office of the Deputy Commissioner. 5. It is stated that except the 1st respondent, the other charged officers have responded and submitted their defence statements, and thereafter, a reminder was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Circle, Hyderabad, through the letter dated 11-01-2008, and after protracted correspondence, as the residential address of the 1st respondent was made available, the charge memo was sent for communication, by registered post with acknowledgement due, and the same was acknowledged by one Praveena, on behalf of the 1st respondent, on 17-07-2009. 6. It is stated that the 1st respondent, on his own volition, approached the Vigilance Section of the office of the 2nd petitioner and received a copy of the charge memo on 28-12-2010, and that it was done deliberately to make it appear that he was not served with the charge memo till his retirement. 7. The 2nd charge memo in G.O. Rt. No.794, MA&UD (E1) Department, dated 21-06-2007, also relates to the 1st respondent, along with others, for their alleged involvement in recommending building permissions in Survey No.554, where there was no approved layout in Warangal Municipal Corporation. It was sent through the Deputy Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, vide endorsement No.7990/2005/V.Cell, dated 04-07-2007, by registered post with acknowledgement due, from the office of the 2nd petitioner, and since there was no response, reminders were also issued by the 2nd petitioner through the Deputy Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Circle, GHMC, Hyderabad, vide letters dated 13-02-2008 and 20-08-2008. 8. 8. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent approached the office of the 2nd petitioner on 29-12-2010 and received a copy of the charge memo, like he did receive the other charge memo earlier. The petitioners contend that disciplinary action was initiated while the 1st respondent was in service, since the date of institution of charge memo is the date of issuance of proceedings and not the date on which the charge memo was received, the immunity under Rule 9 (2) (b) of the Rules 1980 cannot be claimed by the 1st respondent. 9. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent being the Government Servant was obligated with the duty to post the department with the permanent address and the temporary residential address as and when changed. Thus, there was no delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent, as claimed by him. 10. The Tribunal, acceding to the submission of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, that no disciplinary action shall be initiated against the retired employee four (04) years after the incident, as envisaged under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules 1980, and observing that the allegations relate back to the year 1998-2000 and had the charge memos been served on the 1st respondent prior to the date of his retirement, the question of limitation could not have arisen and further observing that the 1st petitioner could not place any material to show the offices to which the charge memos were sent for communication to the 1st respondent, in turn served those charge memos before the date of retirement, set aside the charge memos impugned before it and directed the petitioners to release the pensionary benefits within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of the order impugned. 11. Impugning the above order, the instant writ petition is filed reiterating the grounds set out in the counter filed before the Tribunal stating that the disciplinary action in both the cases got delayed only due to non-cooperation of the 1st respondent in finalising the case. 11. Impugning the above order, the instant writ petition is filed reiterating the grounds set out in the counter filed before the Tribunal stating that the disciplinary action in both the cases got delayed only due to non-cooperation of the 1st respondent in finalising the case. It is stated that the disciplinary action against the 1st respondent was initiated by the 1st petitioner, while he was in service, since the date of issue of charge memo is the date of issuance of proceedings and not the date on which the 1st respondent received the charge memo, and, thus, the Tribunal erred in not holding that the 1st respondent was not entitled to claim immunity under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules 1980, and the disciplinary proceedings were validly initiated and they are maintainable. 12. It is also stated that the 1st respondent attended the enquiry regularly and submitted his defence without raising any objection and approached the Tribunal only after conclusion of the enquiry, having found that the charges were likely to be established against him. It is stated that in the disciplinary action initiated against the 1st respondent vide G.O. Rt. No.784, MA&UD (E1) Department, dated 20-06-2007, the enquiry was over, and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that all the charges framed against him were proved and when the copy of the enquiry report was sent for communication, it was returned un-delivered and even the show-cause notice issued by the Government vide Memo No.19868/E1/2006-6, dated 29-06-2012, proposing imposition of 5% cut in pension for two years, sent for communication was also returned undelivered, and, therefore, the Government sent the same for gazette publication vide Memo No.19868/E1/06, dated 31-08-2012. It is also stated that the Government dropped further action against five others as the charges were not held proved, but imposed punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect against one A. Venkateswara Rao, TPBO. 13. Concerning disciplinary action initiated vide G.O. Rt.No.794, MA&UD (E1) Department, dated 21-06-2007, it is stated that an enquiry officer was also appointed, but when the G.O. was sent for communication to the 1st respondent vide endorsement No.7990/05/V.Cell, dated 18-04-2012, it was returned undelivered, and, therefore, the Government sent the same for getting it published in A.P. Gazette vide Government Memo No.14196/E1/2005-2, dated 31-08-2012, and the matter is at the stage of enquiry, and, therefore, petitioners sought to set aside the order impugned. 14. 14. The 1st respondent filed counter contending that he did not receive charge memo till 21-03-2011 and he received only a copy of the letter issued by the 2nd petitioner, dated 24-12-2010, intimating that two charge memos were pending against him and requested the 3rd petitioner to sanction provisional pension. He submits that under Rule 9(6)(a) of the Rules 1980, the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted against the Government Servant or Pensioner on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government Servant or Pensioner and under Rule 2(b)(ii) of the Rules 1980, the departmental proceedings shall not be in respect of any event, which took place more than four years before such institution. 15. It is stated that in the instant case, both the charge memos framed against him relate to the period from 11-05-1998 to 04-07-2000 and 30-09-2001 to 28-01-2007, during which period he worked at Warangal Municipal Corporation and Machilipatnam Municipality, respectively. Hence, the 1st respondent sought to dismiss the writ petition. 16. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services – I appearing for the petitioners and Sri S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and perused the material on record. 17. Learned Government Pleader contends that the date of issuance of charge memo is the date of institution of the proceedings and not the date on which the 1st respondent received the charge memo. That has to be considered while interpreting the expression “institution” occurring in Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules 1980 and since the charge memos in G.O. Rt. No.784 and 794, dated 20-06-2007 and 21-06-2007, respectively, which necessarily implies that the disciplinary proceedings under these two charge memos said to have been initiated on the day charge sheet had been prepared and signed by the competent authority. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal, somehow, went wrong in interpreting that the date of service of the charge memos must be construed as the date on which the charge is instituted as per Rule 9 (2)(b) of the Rules 1980. 18. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal, somehow, went wrong in interpreting that the date of service of the charge memos must be construed as the date on which the charge is instituted as per Rule 9 (2)(b) of the Rules 1980. 18. It is also the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the 1st respondent deliberately avoided to receive the charge memos and that there has been proof to show that the respective charge memos were sent to the Deputy Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Circle of GHMC, Hyderabad, and reminders were issued to the Deputy Commissioner on 04-01-2008 and 13-02-2008 respectively, in respect of two charge memos, referred to hereinabove, and that only to get over from the disciplinary actions initiated, the 1st respondent deliberately on his own volition approached the office of the petitioners on 28-12-2010 and 29-12-2010, about 2½ years subsequent to his retirement on 31-03-2008, with the deceitful design to bring himself within the fold of Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules 1980. 19. The next submission of the learned Government Pleader is that the 1st respondent, despite participating in the enquiry subsequent to filing of O.A. No.2360 of 2011, the order, which is impugned in the instant writ petition, and even passing of the order in Memo No.19868/E1/2006-6, dated 29-06-2012 proposing imposition of 5% cut in pension for two years, sent for communication was also returned undelivered, did not bring it to the notice of the Tribunal since the impugned orders were passed by the Tribunal on 31-07-2012. 20. Sri S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, submits that service of notice was not effected despite the 1st respondent was working, till his retirement on 31-08-2008, under the petitioners in GHMC, Hyderabad, at L.B. Nagar, and only subsequent to his retirement, when the 1st respondent came to know about the issuance of charge memos, himself approached the vigilance cell of the 2nd respondent and obtained charge memos, but the charge memos were not annexed with the articles of charge, and, therefore, it cannot be construed that the disciplinary action was instituted prior to the date of retirement of the 1st respondent. Since the events, in regard to which charge memos were issued, alleged to have taken place more than four years prior to institution, no disciplinary action can be taken against the 1st respondent and that the Tribunal, therefore, in the light of Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules 1980, rightly quashed both the charge memos, and given positive directions, and, therefore, order of the Tribunal is not liable to be set aside. 21. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the word “instituted” occurring in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) and sub-rule (6)(a) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 would connote the date of signing the charge sheet or the date on which service of memo along with articles of charge was effected on the charged officer? 22. The learned Tribunal on the premise that the allegation relates back to the year 1998-2000 and had the charge memos, if served on the 1st respondent prior to the date of his retirement, the question of limitation could not be arisen and since the charge memo was served only after the retirement of the 1st respondent, and thereby, observing that Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules 1980 mandates that the departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, shall not be instituted in respect of any event that took place prior to his retirement and further observing that since alternative modes of service were provided under the Rules 1980, which is either by way of publication in a widely circulated newspaper or by affixing a notice to the door of the house, in which the charged officer is residing, or the office in which he is functioning, the petitioners ought to have resorted to such modes, in case the delinquent employee was found avoiding to receive such notice and that the petitioners could not place any material to show that those offices, to which charge memo along with articles of charge was sent for service, to the 1st respondent before the date of his retirement, quashed both the G.Os. setting aside the impugned charge memos. 23. In the context of period of limitation with reference to Rule 9 (2)(b)(ii) of the Rules 1980, it would be apt to extract the said rule along with sub-rule(6)(a) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980. 24. Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the Rules 1980, reads as under: “9. setting aside the impugned charge memos. 23. In the context of period of limitation with reference to Rule 9 (2)(b)(ii) of the Rules 1980, it would be apt to extract the said rule along with sub-rule(6)(a) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980. 24. Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the Rules 1980, reads as under: “9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension:- (1) … …. … (2)(a) … … … (b) The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment: (i) … … … (ii) Shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. (iii) … … … (3) … … … (4) … … … (5) … … … (6) For the purpose of this rule - 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.” 25. Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 deals with the rights of the Government to withhold or withdraw the pension. A prohibitary clause is enlaid through Clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) (b) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 for institution of departmental proceedings against the retired Government Servant. 26. Clause (a) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980, which deals with as to when the departmental proceedings deemed to be instituted, reads thus: “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.” 27. The word “issue” occurring in the above clause is of great significance in the present context and is subject of interpretation by the Hon’ble Apex court in Delhi Development Authority v. H.C. Khurana (1993) 3 SCC 196 )and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Onkar Chand Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 171 ), where similar question arose. 28. The word “issue” occurring in the above clause is of great significance in the present context and is subject of interpretation by the Hon’ble Apex court in Delhi Development Authority v. H.C. Khurana (1993) 3 SCC 196 )and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Onkar Chand Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 171 ), where similar question arose. 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Delhi Development Authority’s Case (Supra 1), in the context of Clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) (b) of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980, resorting to sealed cover procedure while effecting promotions against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has to be taken to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, had the occasion to explain the meaning of the word “issue”, occurring in paragraph No.2 of O.M., dated September 14, 1992, held thus: “The meaning of the word ‘issued’ on which considerable stress was laid by learned counsel for the respondent, has to be gathered from the context in which it is used. Meanings of the word ‘issue’ given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary include: ‘to give exit to; to send forth, or allow to pass out; to let out; to give or sent out authoritatively or officially; to send forth or deal out formally or publicly; to emit, put into circulation’. The issue of a charge-sheet, therefore, means its despatch to the government servant, and this act is complete the moment steps are taken for the purpose, by framing the charge-sheet and despatching it to the government servant, the further fact of its actual service on the government servant not being a necessary part of its requirement. This is the sense in which the word ‘issue’ was used in the expression ‘charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee.” 29. In State of Madhya Pradesh’s Case (Supra 2), the Hon’ble Apex Court, while answering the question whether the disciplinary proceedings can be said to have been initiated by framing charge sheet or only after the charge sheet has been served on the delinquent employee, held thus: “In our opinion, the disciplinary proceedings can be held to have been initiated on the day the charge-sheet has been prepared and signed by the competent authority.” 30. In the instant case, the material placed would reflect that G.O. Rt. In the instant case, the material placed would reflect that G.O. Rt. No.784 was issued on 20-06-2007, which relates to the period from 2001 to 2006, while functioning as T.P.O. in Machilipatnam Municipality, for allowing encroachment of municipal lands, which details were contained in the charge sheet, relating to the Articles of Charge – I, appended to the said G.O. Three charges were framed in the said G.O. 31. For service of memo along with articles of charges on the 1st respondent, the same was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Circle of GHMC, Hyderabad on 04-07-2007 by registered post with acknowledgement due. A reminder was also issued to the Deputy Commissioner for effecting service on the 1st respondent on 04-01-2008. The 1st respondent retired from service on 31-03-2008. Therefore, it is obvious that preparation and signing of charge sheet was completed by 20-06-2007 and even attempts were made to effect service through the Deputy Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Circle of GHMC, Hyderabad, since the 1st respondent was working in L.B. Nagar Circle of GHMC. 32. In view of the decisions referred to above of the Hon’ble Apex Court, issue of G.O. Rt. No.784, dated 20-06-2007, clearly satisfies the requirement of Rule 9 (2)(b)(ii) of the Rules 1980, obviating the requirement of obtaining previous sanction of the Government as envisaged by Clause (ii) of Rule 9(2)(b), since the 1st respondent was still in service on the date of its issuance. 33. Even concerning the allegations against the 1st respondent contained in the Memo along with articles of charges in regard to G.O. Rt. No.794 dated 21-06-2007, the situation is alike. The allegations therein relate to the period from 1998 to 2000 while the 1st respondent was functioning as T.P.O. in Warangal Municipal Corporation for recommending for building permission in Survey No.554, though, there was no private layout as the site, under reference therein, was an urban surplus land. 34. Therefore, it is obvious that issue of G.O. Rt. The allegations therein relate to the period from 1998 to 2000 while the 1st respondent was functioning as T.P.O. in Warangal Municipal Corporation for recommending for building permission in Survey No.554, though, there was no private layout as the site, under reference therein, was an urban surplus land. 34. Therefore, it is obvious that issue of G.O. Rt. Nos.784 and 794, dated 20-06-2007 and 21-06-2007, respectively, since took place prior to retirement of the 1st respondent, by necessary implication, it has to be held that they were prepared and signed culminating into issuance of both the G.Os., and, therefore, it has to be held that they squarely fall within the ambit of Rule 9 (2)(b) of the Rules 1980 and consequently, we are of the opinion that there is no infraction of rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules 1980. The Tribunal, somehow, viewed that the actual service of memo along with articles of charges was a pre-condition and since the same was not occurring, quashed both the G.Os. At this stage itself, it is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that even under G.O. Rt. No.784, dated 20-06-2007, which relates to the period 2001 2006, the Tribunal wrongly proceeded on the premise that the allegations relate back to 19982000, without referring to the allegations levelled against the 1st respondent while he was functioning as T.P.O. in Machiliaptnam Municipality, Machilipatnam. 35. We are also of the opinion that the conduct of the charged officer is worth mentioning in the present context. The 1st respondent, despite working in GHMC at L.B. Nagar Circle, cannot be said to have failed to gain knowledge as to the allegations levelled against him and six others. The very fact that he approached the Vigilance Cell of GHMC on 28-12-2010 and 29-12-2010 and obtained memos itself would reflect his conduct for the reason that he retired from service on 31-03-2008, but approached the Vigilance Cell of GHMC on 28-12-2010 and again on 29-10-2012. In ordinary circumstances, a man of ordinary prudence would not maintain silence when his retiral benefits were withheld and pension was not sanctioned for such a long length of time i.e., nearly 2 years 9 months. What can be gathered from that silence on the part of the 1st respondent is that unless he entertained some oblique motive to gain undue advantage, he would not have maintained silence. What can be gathered from that silence on the part of the 1st respondent is that unless he entertained some oblique motive to gain undue advantage, he would not have maintained silence. It is not his case that he made an attempt to get the sanction of pension and retiral benefits prior to 28-12-2010. It is clear from the record that in the disciplinary action initiated in G.O. Rt. No.784, dated 20-06-2007, the 1st respondent attended the enquiry regularly and submitted his defence before the Enquiry Officer without objecting to the charge memo on the ground that it was served on him subsequent to his retirement and having maintained silence and taking part in the enquiry, he approached the Tribunal, only after conclusion of the enquiry anticipating that the charges are likely to be established against him. It is also stated that the charges framed against him were held to be proved and when a communication was sent along with a copy of the enquiry report, the same was also returned undelivered and even the show cause notice issued by the Government vide Memo No.19868/E1/2006-6, dated 29-06-2012, proposing imposition of 5% cut in pension for two years, sent for communication was also returned undelivered, and, therefore, the Government was compelled to send the same for gazette publication vide Memo No.19868/E1/06, dated 31-06-2012. In fact, by the date of show cause notice in Memo No. 19868/E1/2006-6, dated 29-06-2012, the O.A. was still pending, since it was allowed only on 31-07-2012, which order is impugned in this writ petition. Without bringing the same to the notice of the Tribunal and awaiting orders of the Tribunal, it appears, the 1st respondent avoided to receive the Government Memo dated 29-06-2012. 36. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 37. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 38. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition stand disposed of.