ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not granted Full Pension and Retirement Benefits pursuant to the G.O.Rt.No.831 dated 29.11.2016. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired as Special Grade Deputy Collector from the office of the 2nd respondent on 29.06.2020 after the allotment to the State Government of Andhra Pradesh pursuant to the bifurcation of the State. While working in the Telangana area, the Government of Telangana issued a G.O.Rt.No.831 dated 29.11.2016 in relation to the Tribal Welfare Department initiating disciplinary action on account of the allegations of misappropriation of funds in Warangal District during the year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The said G.O.Rt.No.831 dated 29.11.2016 refers to the petitioner at serial No.1 along with the other Employees – ITDA department in the table stating that the said employees are involved in a disciplinary case regarding irregularities in implementation of Tribal Welfare Schemes and misappropriation of funds in Warangal District for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to the above said G.O.Rt.No.831 dated 29.11.2016 there was no progress in the disciplinary proceedings and no charges were framed and served on the petitioner and she further contends that the respondents cannot proceed with any kind of enquiry pursuant to the above said G.O.Rt. No.831 dated 29.11.2016 as it is contrary to the Rule 9(2) (b) and (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 4. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader submits that the Government initiated disciplinary proceedings vide order in G.O.Rt.No.831 dated 29.11.2016 when the petitioner was in employment itself much before his retirement. Hence the Rule 9 (2) (a) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 would apply and as such the Government has got still time to frame the charges against the petitioner under any proceedings along with the other employees. 5. In reply, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government of Telangana also addressed a letter to the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide proceedings dated 20.03.2021 informing the issuance of the G.O.Rt.No.831 dated 29.11.2016 in respect of the petitioner herein also along with other employees which was initiated under common proceedings. 5. In reply, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government of Telangana also addressed a letter to the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide proceedings dated 20.03.2021 informing the issuance of the G.O.Rt.No.831 dated 29.11.2016 in respect of the petitioner herein also along with other employees which was initiated under common proceedings. Except that there is no other material for the respondents to show that the departmental proceedings actually have been started and commenced in respect of the petitioner for the purpose of not settling the pension and other retirement benefits so far. For the purpose of clarity and adjudication of the matter the Rule 9 (2) (a), Rule 9 (2) (b) and Rule (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 are reproduced hereunder : Rule 9 : (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 reemployment 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 : (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 Rule (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) x x x 6. Having regard to the above said facts and circumstances and rival submissions of the counsels, it is to be seen that there is no dispute with regard to the date of retirement of the petitioner while he was working in the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the control of the 2nd respondent and there is no dispute with regard to the issuance of the above said G.O. Rt.No.831 dated 29.11.2016 mentioning the name of the petitioner also with regard to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings on the allegations of irregularities in implementation of the Tribal Welfare Schemes in Warangal District. But however, the issue would arise whether the respondents can withhold the settlement of pension and other retirement benefits solely on the ground that the above said G.O.Rt.No.831 dated 29.11.2016 was issued by the Government of Telangana which is pending as per the respondents? 7. The learned Government Pleader submits that as per rule 9 (2) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 though the Government employee retired from service the departmental proceedings shall be continued as if he is in service since the above said G.O.Rt.No.831 dated 29.11.2016 was issued when the petitioner was in service and as such the respondents are justified in withholding the determination of the pension and retirement benefits till completion of the actual enquiry into the matter. 8. Whereas the counsel for the petitioner invokes Rule 9 (2) (b) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 submitting that the Government has not yet instituted any departmental proceedings as the allegations mentioned in the above said G.O.Rt.No.831 dated 29.11.2016 would also relate to the alleged incidents of more than a period of four (04) years before such institution. Hence the respondents cannot proceed with the any enquiry in whatsoever manner pursuant to the above said G.O. in respect of the petitioner is concerned. However the Rule (6) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 would clarify when the departmental proceedings deemed to have been instituted and commenced according to which it is clear that until and unless the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner it cannot be construed as the commencement of departmental proceedings. However the Rule (6) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 would clarify when the departmental proceedings deemed to have been instituted and commenced according to which it is clear that until and unless the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner it cannot be construed as the commencement of departmental proceedings. Admittedly in this case though vide order dated 29.11.2016, the disciplinary authority was directed to take disciplinary action against the said Government servants including the petitioner herein, no departmental proceedings so far was commenced strictly in terms of Rule (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and as such Rule 9 (2) (a) of the AP Revised Pension Rules has no application in respect of the petitioner is concerned and Rule 9 (2) (b) would apply in case of the petitioner herein. 9. Taking into consideration of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 specifically Rule 9 (6) of the said Rules the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for settlement of Full Pension and Retirement Benefits without reference to the G.O.Rt.No.831 dated 29.11.2016 issued by the Government of Telangana as expeditiously as possible preferably within three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this case, shall stand closed.