ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:- “…… to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Rt.No.137, Industries & Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 01.08.2022 imposing the penalty of 15% cut in pension permanently against the petitioner as wholly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural Justice and consequently to declare that the Petitioner is entitled for full pension and pass such other order or orders...” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Development Officer in the year 1982 through APPSC and posted in the office of Assistant Director, Handlooms and Textiles, Kurnool vide proceedings dated 02.07.1982. Later, he was promoted as Development officer on 19.03.1996 and thereafter, as Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles on 10.12.2009. On attaining the age of Superannuation, while working as Assistant Director(H&T) in the office of Deputy Director (ENf.)/Regional Deputy Director (H&T) Tirupati, he was permitted to retire from service with effect from 30.4.2011 vide proceedings dated 27.04.2011 issued by the Joint Director (H&T), Office of Commissioner of Handlooms & Textiles & Commissioner for Apparel Export Parks, A.P. Hyderabad. 4. After 10 months of his retirement, the respondent No.1 herein issued Articles of Charge in G.O.Rt.No.80, Industries & Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 16.02.2012 framing 03 (three) charges against the petitioner alleging that while he was working as Development Officer (H&T), Ananthapur during the period from 1996-2004 and 2008-2009, that the:- I) Petitioner had failed to find out the genuineness of the records of five societies viz. i) Shirdi Sai SWCS, Ravulacheruvu 2) Sri Annapumeswari SWCS, Rayadurg 3) Aradhana SWCS, Kesepali 4) Sri Lakshmi Bhavani SWCS and 5) Sri Chandrasekhara SWCS, Vadiampeta, which created bogus records of membership, production & sales to claim inflated Marketing Incentives and caused misappropriation of funds sanctioned to those societies to a tune of Rs 49,71,900/-, II) Petitioner Failed to detect bogus membership, bogus inflation, bogus purchase of yarn and bogus production and sales in Nandini SWCs, Dharmawavaram and recommended for sanction of excess credit/bogus marketing incentives of Rs.6,09,500/-, thereby caused misappropriation of funds in the society, III) Petitioner failed to conduct inspections of the societies periodically/ rectification of defects pointed in audit/supervision of Primary Weavers Co-operative Societies as instructed from time to time and thus, petitioner exhibited gross negligence and misconduct in discharging the legitimate duties entrusted to the petitioner which is in contravention to Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 5. Consequently, an inquiry officer was appointed who submitted his report on 11.02.2013 holding that the charge Nos.1 to 3 were partly proved. After that, a show cause notice was issued vide Memo dated 26.03.2016 as to why 15% cut in pension on permanent basis should not be imposed against the petitioner under Rule 9(2)(a) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Finally, on 11.08.2022 Government issued orders vide G.O.Rt.No.137, Industries & Commerce (Vigilance Department, imposing the punishment of cut in pension by 15% on permanent basis. 6. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the impugned order cutting 15% cut in pension permanently by 2nd respondent is erroneous as the said order is passed without considering his explanations to the charges, which the petitioner submitted as follows: i. 1st charge explanation: until June 2006, Silk Weavers Co-operative Societies were under the control of Sericulture Department. They were transferred to the administrative control of Handlooms & Textiles Department in July, 2006. By the time they were transferred to the latter Department, all the schemes providing financial assistance were under implementation and they were continued for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-20009. Petitioner has not sanctioned the funds to the said societies as they were under other department, after change in the department said schemes which were already in existence have been merely continued. They were placed under the supervision of the petitioner in the year 2009 ii. Petitioner has not sanctioned the funds to the said societies as they were under other department, after change in the department said schemes which were already in existence have been merely continued. They were placed under the supervision of the petitioner in the year 2009 ii. 2nd charge explanation: Petitioner has not recommended any proposal neither for marketing incentive nor CC limit in respect of Nandini Silk SWCS, Dharmavaram. The Vigilance team itself visited and identified 32 active working looms and also certified the weaving members working in the society are genuine iii. 3rd charge explanation: petitioner has submitted that during the period 1996 to 2004 the societies were under the Silk weavers Cooperative Societies but not under the department of the petitioner. For the allegations pertaining to 2008-2009, it is due to burden of work in the department and pre-occupation with other developmental activities he could not conduct the periodical or other inspections but he used to visit the societies as often as he could. 7. Though the petitioner has submitted explanation with respect to the above 3 charges as stated above, without considering his explanation, inquiry officer was appointed on 24-08-2012. The inquiry officer submitted a report on 11.02.2013 neither examining any witnesses nor persons who authored the proceedings on which the disciplinary authority relied upon, no documents were verified nor marked during the course of inquiry and stated that the there is no misappropriation of funds by the petitioner but there is supervisory lapse on the part of the petitioner and submitted that charges are partly proved against the petitioner. Presiding officer has not filed any documents before the inquiry officer, no witnesses were examined, and furthermore, the basis for proving charges is not stated by the inquiry officer. The document on which the inquiry officer has relied upon is not clear. No defence statement submitted by the petitioner was considered. 8. The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the inquiry report on 22.04.2013, again without considering the given explanation a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Memo dated 26.03.2016 to which petitioner has submitted his detailed explanations but none of them were considered by the government before passing the impugned order by the Government in G.o.Rt.No.137 dated 11.08.2022 imposing the 15% cut in pension on permanent basis against the petitioner. 9. 9. It is contended that no hearing opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 11.08.2022. The impugned order was in violation of principles of natural justice. The punishment was imposed mechanically based on the recommendations of the Director, Handlooms & Textiles without giving any reasons. 10. It is contended that though the inquiry report was submitted on 11.02.2013, a show cause notice proposing punishment was issued after lapse of 3 years i.e., on 26.03.2016; to which petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.04.2016. But the orders in G.O.Rt.No.137 Industries and Commerce (Vigilance) Department were issued on 11.08.2022 which is after a huge gap of 6 years. From the date of charges, it took 10 long years for the government to conclude the disciplinary proceedings without any known reason for such delay. 11. It is submitted that in case of similarly situated 4 (four) other persons who are in service, the commissioner of Handlooms & Textiles imposed the penalty of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect against each of them. Then they filed appeal to the Government and the Government modified the said Penalities as “censure” vide G.O.Rt.Nos.89 & 90, Industries & Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 25.03.2019 and G.O.Rt.Nos.132, I 33 and 134, Industries & Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 29.05.2019 respectively. Petitioner is also one such similarly situated person and he brought the same to the notice to the respondent No.1 through a representation on 06.05.2019, but without considering it the respondent No.2 imposed the punishment of 15% cut in pension on permanent basis. 12. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings are barred by limitation as per Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules which states that the Departmental Proceedings shall not be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before. Since, the incidents were taken place in between 28.05.1996 to 04.08.2004 and 16.06.2008 to 10.12.2009, the charges were framed only on 06.02.2012. Hence, the petitioner cannot be charged for the incidents alleged to have taken place before 2008. 13. After notice the respondents have filed the counter affidavit. Since, the incidents were taken place in between 28.05.1996 to 04.08.2004 and 16.06.2008 to 10.12.2009, the charges were framed only on 06.02.2012. Hence, the petitioner cannot be charged for the incidents alleged to have taken place before 2008. 13. After notice the respondents have filed the counter affidavit. According to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 it is submitted that GA (V&E) Department in its report dated 10.02.2010 has recommended the government to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner i.e., the then Assistant Director (H&T) along with 14 other officials and to initiate criminal action besides recovery of funds from the Presidents of Societies in the case of misappropriation of funds in 127 Silk Weavers Cooperative Societies (SWCS) released under various schemes for the years 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 in Anantapur District. Basing on the said recommendation, the Director of H&T was requested and permitted to take immediate necessary action for enquiries/inspections under Rule 51/52 of APCS Act and to ascertain and send a report on the officials who are involved during the period in question relating to Sericulture/ Handlooms to take disciplinary action against the responsible person as per APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. Since, the petitioner was retired on 30.04.2011, sanction was accorded by the government under Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules,1980 Vide G.O.R.T No. 79 to initiate the disciplinary action against the petitioner and article of charges were issued vide G.O.R.T No.80 Ind & Com (Vig) Department, dt.16.02.2012. 14. It is submitted that as per Circular Memo dated 15.03.2020, "the date of occurrence of the event is always the date on which the effect of the event is felt or found out". As such, the article of charges have been framed against the petitioner within four years limitation period as the V&E report was furnished by the GA (V&E) Department was in the year 2010 only and charges have been framed in the year 2012 itself. 15. Petitioner submitted his statement of defence on 09.03.2012, the government after examining the explanation given by the petitioner as per Rule 20(5)(b)&(C) of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 appointed Inquiring authority and Presenting officer to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. 15. Petitioner submitted his statement of defence on 09.03.2012, the government after examining the explanation given by the petitioner as per Rule 20(5)(b)&(C) of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 appointed Inquiring authority and Presenting officer to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. The inquiry officer has submitted his findings to the charges as below:- I. With regard to the 1st charge, though the societies were registered by the authorities of Sericulture department and that does not come under the purview of petitioner functions, the manipulation of records and inflated figures was done through fictious yarn purchase bills from Karnataka State and received more incentives from the government, but the defects pointed out by the Auditors have also not been rectified by the management or by the staff of AD(H&T), Anantapur. Therefore, the inquiry officer observed that there is no misappropriation of government funds by the petitioner but a supervisory lapse is there on the part of the petitioner. II. With regard to 2nd charge, by considering the defence of the petitioner that the accounts of the society are subject to audit of cooperative department based on the records maintained by the society, the Inquiry officer observed that the petitioner is not responsible for any misappropriation since the Vigilance team itself has certified a list of (32) working members. III. With regard to charge 3, though the petitioner has taken a defence of heavy workload, but the petitioner could have spared his time to have proper supervision on the activities of societies in the best interest of administration. Though there is no evidence of the circulation of audit report to the petitioner, the petitioner could have asked the authorities for the same. On failing to do so, Inquiry officer opined that due to lack of proper supervision on physical activities of the societies and failure to conduct periodical inspection resulted in misappropriation of funds by the society Presidents. Hence the inquiry officer in his report submitted that there is no misappropriation of funds by petitioner but a supervisory lapse observing that charge Nos.1,2 & 3 are partly proved against the petitioner. 16. After that petitioner has submitted his explanation to the inquiry report on 06.04.2013 and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.03.2016 as per Rule 9(2)(a) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, proposing punishment of 15% cut in pension permanently. 16. After that petitioner has submitted his explanation to the inquiry report on 06.04.2013 and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.03.2016 as per Rule 9(2)(a) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, proposing punishment of 15% cut in pension permanently. It is agreed that there is delay in the show cause notice which was issued after a lapse of 3 years, to which the petitioner submitted his reply vide representation dated 06.05.2019; the 1st representation alleged to be sent by the petitioner on 06.04.2016 is not received by the government. The punishment of 15 % cut in pension vide G.O.Rt.No.137 Ind & Com (Vig) Dept., dt.01.08.2022 was imposed only after careful examination and consideration of explanation submitted by the petitioner. 17. With regard to the allegation of 12 years delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, it is due to the procedure which has to be followed from initiation of disciplinary proceedings to conclusion of the same till obtaining the concurrence of APPSC. Petitioner has caused delay in filing reply to the show cause notice after a period of 3 years. Since, there is no co-operation from the petitioner the delay has occurred in the proceedings. 18. With regard to the similarly situated persons, departmental proceedings were initiated against them also and who were imposed a punishment of “stoppage of 5 Annual Grade Increments with “cumulative effect”, they have preferred appeals to the government and after careful examination of their appeals, government case-wise modified the penalties as censure. Petitioner has not filed any such appeal. 19. After filing of counter the petitioner has filed his reply affidavit. According to reply affidavit, it is stated that the allegations contained in the charge memo issued on 26.03.2010 pertains to the offences prior to 2008 is more than 4 years from the date of charge memo i.e., the period from 1996 to 2004 and 2008-2009; Rule 9(2)(b) cannot be interpreted in such way losing its true sense resulting in gross violation and erroneous understanding of the said Rule. Further, the accounts of the Department were audited from time to time and found no mistake. 20. Further, the accounts of the Department were audited from time to time and found no mistake. 20. In reply to the contention raised that the petitioner submitted his reply after 3 years i.e., on 06.05.2019 to the show cause notice issued on 26.03.2016, submitted that petitioner has initially submitted the said reply on 16.04.2016 itself and also proof of the same is filed in the material papers of the writ petition. It is after the punishment of censure was awarded modifying the earlier punishment to the similarly situated candidates, petitioner made another representation to bringing the above said developments to the notice of the respondent. The assumed delay in filing reply to the said show cause notice was also not mentioned in the impugned order. 21. Based on the above pleadings, the learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the impugned proceedings dated 01.08.2022 have been issued after the lapse of ten (10) years which is contrary to the observations made by this Hon’ble High Court in Maruboyina Ramanjaneyulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2021 (1) ALT 557 (AP). The relevant paragraphs of the case as follows:- “28. As already held in the case of N.Radha Kishan (3rd supra), the balance has to be between the right of the public servant for expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course. The Court would also have to keep in mind that delay, especially prolonged delay, would cause prejudice to the charged officer. 29. In the present case, the incident under the scanner is said to have taken place in the year 2014. The criminal case filed against the petitioner was closed. There was silence on the part of the authorities for another 5 years and the petitioner is allowed to retire. Thereafter, a charge memo is issued to the petitioner. This is a clear case where the delay is inexplicable and not on account of the Petitioner herein. This delay has caused prejudice to the Petitioner as the petitioner would not be in a position, at this length of time, to put forward a comprehensive defence in relation to facts which have faded from memory.” In fact though there is a specific ground raised by the petitioner with regard to delay of laches in concluding the disciplinary proceedings there is no proper reply to the said laches. Even there is no absolute finding against the petitioner for imposing the punishment of cut of 15% pensionary benefits permanently. Hence, the impugned proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.137 dated 01.08.2022 is contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in the above said case on the ground of laches; hence, requested to set aside the same. 22. Considering the above submissions and on perusal of the observations made by this Court in the above refereed case, no doubt there is a gross negligence on the part of the respondents in concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner herein. In fact the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner after his retirement. Though it is mentioned as 2008 and 2009, the entire allegations are pertaining to 2004 and 2005, which is beyond the period prescribed in Rule 9 2(b)(ii) of the Revised Pension Rules. As contended by the petitioner, no doubt the charge memo was issued on 16.02.2012, to that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 09.03.2012 and the inquiry report has been submitted on 11.02.2013 and the show cause notice for proposing punishment was issued on 26.03.2016; surprisingly, the impugned order have been passed on 01.08.2022 after the lapse of six (06) years from the date of submission of explanation by the petitioner and there is no reply with regard to delay of six (06) years in passing the impugned proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.137 dated 01.08.2022. 23. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that since impugned orders are passed after the lapse of ten (10) years from the initiation of the proceedings and also there is six (06) years delay after submission of the explanation by the petitioner, the impugned order passed is contrary to Rule 9 (2)(b)(ii) of the Revised Pension Rules. Accordingly, the impugned G.O.Rt.No.137 dated 01.08.2022 is set aside by declaring that the petitioner is entitled for full pension. 24. With the above said directions, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.