ORDER : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…to set aside the impugned G.O.Rt.No.167 Department for Women children Disabled and Senior Citizens Estt. A3, dated 6.10.2015 issued by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice protracted for 15 years violation of APCS (CC and A Rules 1991 apart from violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides treating the period of suspension as on duty and pass such other order or orders…….” 2. Heard Mr. C. Srinviasa Baba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that while working as Regional Deputy Director at Eluru, she was implicated a false disciplinary proceedings for an alleged incident that took place in December 1999. She was subjected to both departmental and criminal proceedings simultaneously on the same issue. The criminal case bearing S.C No.420 of 2000 filed against her was acquitted by learned Sessions Judge, Eluru vide judgment dated 3.3.2003. However, she was subjected to simultaneous departmental proceedings by issuing a charge memo, dated 3.2.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted her explanation denying the charges leveled against her. Without taking any action on the 1st charge, the respondent has issued another charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.96 Department for Women, Children (Estt.A2) Disabled & Senior Citizens dated 22.3.2011 on the same issue. It is further stated that the issue relates to 1999 and a charge memo was issued on 3.2.2000. Questioning the same and also requesting to regulate the period of suspension i.e., from 2.12.1999 to 13.7.2003, the petitioner has preferred O.A No.2492 of 2011 before the Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the same was allowed vide order dated 2.09.2013, while setting aside the G.O.Rt.No.95, Department for Women, Children (Estt.A2) Disabled and Senior Citizens, dated 22.3.2011, directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders regulating the suspension period of the applicant from 2.12.1999 to 13.07.2033 in accordance with rules, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. However, the respondents have not taken any action. Therefore, she preferred Contempt Application No.1278/2014 before the Tribunal. However, the respondents have not taken any action. Therefore, she preferred Contempt Application No.1278/2014 before the Tribunal. Though notice was issued by the Tribunal, instead of implementing the orders of the Tribunal, the respondent has issued the present impugned order imposing punishment of 10% cut in the pension of the petitioner for a period of three years vide G.O.Rt.Mo.167, dated 6.10.2015. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the petitioner has filed O.A. before the Tribunal challenging the orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.167, dated 6.10.2015. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Government in G.O.Rt.No.458, W.D & C.W. & D.W., dated 4.12.1999 have suspended the petitioner from service as she was involved in a criminal case No.420 of 2000 and sent for judicial custody on the charges of criminal intimidation in connection with an Orphan minority girl by name Shaik Begum alias Manjula. Therefore, the Government vide Memo No.8880/Estt.A2/1999-5, dated 03.02.2000 have issued articles of charges against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted her written statement denying all the charges leveled against her on 25.07.2000. Hence, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.335, W.D & C.W. & D.W. (Estt.) Dept., dated 26.09.2000 have appointed the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.95 Dept. for W.C. (Estt.A2) D& SCs, dated 22.03.2011 have issued another articles of Charge to the petitioner, as he had failed in filing of FIR on missing of the Orphan minor girl for the three days from 14.6.1999 including two others. However, the petitioner had not submitted her written statement so far. But, after examining the matter, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.167 had issued the impugned proceedings imposing the punishment of 10% cut in admissible pension for a period of three years under Rule 9 of A.P.R.P. Rules, 1980 as a part of concluding the initial disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner vide Memo No.8880/Estt.A2/1999-5, dated 03.02.2000. Further, the Government vide Memo No. 8880/Estt.A3/1999, dated 15.10.2015 have issued orders treating of suspension period of the charged officer as “Not duty” under sub-rules (5) and (7) of FR.54 (B) in compliance of the orders passed in O.A.No.2492 of 2011. Therefore prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard Mr. Further, the Government vide Memo No. 8880/Estt.A3/1999, dated 15.10.2015 have issued orders treating of suspension period of the charged officer as “Not duty” under sub-rules (5) and (7) of FR.54 (B) in compliance of the orders passed in O.A.No.2492 of 2011. Therefore prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard Mr. C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition submits that the petitioner is the victim of perpetual harassment in the hands of the authorities. She is being haunted for no fault of her. He submits that it is a clear case of abuse of powers by the authorities for capricious, extraneous and collateral reasons to victimize the petitioner solely on the ground that she has filed the Contempt application for her survival. He further submits that the petitioner retired from service on attaining age of superannuation on 31.12.2012 and she denied her retirement benefits. With great persuasion, provisional pension was released to her from December 2013 onwards. 7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents reiterated the contents made in the counter submits that the action taken by the respondent is legal and as per rules. Imposing the punishment of 10% cut in admissible pension for a period of three years issued by the Government to the petitioner is under Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules 1980. 8. On hearing both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material available on record, this Court observed that the respondent while issuing impugned order pursuant to notice in Contempt Application has also further engineered three more charge Memos which were all issued after the institution of contempt application with ulterior motive that the petitioner shall be taught a lesson for instituting the contempt application against a senior IAS officer. Further, the respondent, who is expected to act like a model employer, is acting like a Caesar wanting a pound of flesh to satisfy personal ego. The petitioner is taking appropriate steps to question the other G.Os in the disciplinary proceeding initiated against her. This Court further observed that the petitioner’s gratuity and full pension are illegally withheld by the respondent. The petitioner is taking appropriate steps to question the other G.Os in the disciplinary proceeding initiated against her. This Court further observed that the petitioner’s gratuity and full pension are illegally withheld by the respondent. Viewed from any angle, the action of the respondent is a clear case of arbitrary besides an act of vindictiveness and violation of principles of natural justice. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that as per 21 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (for short “A.P.C.S.(CCA) Rules”), reads as under : (21) (a) Where a disciplinary authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of rule 9 and in rule 10 but not competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (x), of rule 9, has itself inquired into or caused to be inquired into the articles of any charge and that authority, having regard to its own findings or having regard to its decision on any of the findings of any inquiring authority appointed by it is of the opinion that the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (x), of rule 9 should be imposed on the Government servant, that authority shall forward the records of the inquiry to such disciplinary authority as is competent to impose the last mentioned penalties. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the entire material available on record, this Court observed that as the petitioner has retired from service on 31.12.2012 and the charges leveled against her in the year 2015 imposing the punishment of 10% cut in admissible pension for a period of three years is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the considered view that, while setting aside the impugned order in G.O.Rt.No.167, Department for Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens (Estt.A3) dated 6.10.2015 issued by the respondent, directing the respondents to re-enquire and re-examine the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance with rules, as expeditiously as possible. 11. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.