ORDER : CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “ to declare the action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings in pursuance G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 06.06.2022 and G.O.Rt.No.350, dated 06.06.2022 issued by the 1 st respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in contravention to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and the clarification issued under circular Memo No.993083/FIN01-HR01-HR0CLI/9/2019-HR-III, Finance (HR. Ill-Pension) Department dated 15.03.2020 and to consequently set aside the same and to pass such other orders.” 2. With the consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II, the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage. 3. Petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2016 in the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture. After retirement, by G.O.Ms.No.30, Agriculture & Cooperation (VIG.I) Department, dated 24.04.2017, Government has given sanction in terms of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, to initiate departmental proceedings against him and vide G.O.Rt.No.249, Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG.I) Department, dated 24.04.2017, three articles of charges were communicated by issuing a charge memo. The sum and substance of the aforesaid articles of charge were that petitioner has acquired certain immovable properties during his service from 1981 to 2011, which were done without prior permission, thereby he has contravened the service regulations. A case of disproportionate assets was registered against petitioner and his family members vide Cr.No.08/RCA-VSP/2011, dated 29.04.2011, under Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in which charge sheet came to be filed and the same got numbered as C.C. No.20 of 2017 on the file of III Additional District Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.2, Agriculture & Cooperation (VIG.I) Department, dated 17.01.2019, while withdrawing the prosecution against petitioner has ordered for enquiry through Commissioner of Enquiries by rescinding the earlier orders of prosecution. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner was issued charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.919, Agriculture and Co-operation (VIG.I) Department, dated 26.12.2023. The petitioner has submitted explanation to aforesaid charges and the enquiry is pending. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initiation of proceedings after the petitioner’s retirement, for an incident before beyond four years, is unsustainable in view of Rule(9)(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules. The petitioner has submitted explanation to aforesaid charges and the enquiry is pending. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initiation of proceedings after the petitioner’s retirement, for an incident before beyond four years, is unsustainable in view of Rule(9)(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules. The said issue is no more res integra and the same has been decided in P.S.Sainath v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Order of this Court in W.P. No.24611 of 2024, dated 19.12.2024. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents placed on record written instructions. As per said instructions, it is stated that basing on the crime registered on 29.04.2011 regarding disproportionate assets, petitioner was placed under suspension by proceedings dated 14.05.2011 and thereafter, Government had accorded sanction for prosecution by G.O.Ms.No.64, Agriculture and Co-operation (VIG.I) Department, dated 29.07.2016, and all further subsequent actions initiated by the respondents are in pursuance to aforesaid permission, therefore, he tried to justify the enquiry. 6. The coordinate Bench of this Court has considered the aforesaid Rule position and by referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P and another vs. Shri Krishan Pandey , [ (1996) 9 SCC 395 ] while dealing with a case of a Government Servant of retirement from service observes as follows: “It would thus be seen that proceedings are required to be instituted against a delinquent officer before retirement. There is no specific provision allowing the officer to continue in service nor any order passed to allow him to continue on re-employment till the enquiry is completed, without allowing him to retire from service. Equally, there is no provision that the proceedings be initiated as disciplinary measure and the action initiated earlier would remain unabated after retirement. If Rule 351- A is to be operative in respect of pending proceedings, by necessary implication, prior sanction of the Governor to continue the proceedings against him is required. On the other hand, the rule also would indicate that if the officer caused pecuniary loss or committed embezzlement etc. due to misconduct or negligence or dereliction of duty, then proceedings should also be instituted after retirement against the officer as expeditiously as possible. But the events of misconduct etc. On the other hand, the rule also would indicate that if the officer caused pecuniary loss or committed embezzlement etc. due to misconduct or negligence or dereliction of duty, then proceedings should also be instituted after retirement against the officer as expeditiously as possible. But the events of misconduct etc. which may have resulted in the loss to the Government or embezzlement, i.e., the cause for the institution of proceedings, should not have taken place more than four years before the date of institution of proceedings. In other words, the departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct etc. had taken place. Admittedly, in this case the officer had retired on March 31, 1987 and the proceedings were initiated on April 21, 1991. Obviously, the event of embezzlement which caused pecuniary loss to the State took place prior to four years from the date of his retirement. Under these circumstances, the State had disabled itself by their deliberate omissions to take appropriate action against the respondent and allowed the officer to escape from the provisions of Rule 351-A of the Rules. This order does not preclude proceeding with the investigation into the offence and taking action thereon.” 7. On perusal of the Rule, it would manifest that if the departmental proceedings have not been instituted while the Government Servant was in service, whether before his reemployment or during his retirement, the same shall not be instituted in respect of an event which took place before four years in such institution. 8. It is also pertinent to mention that as per Rule 9(6)(a) of Rules, the departmental proceedings deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges was issued to the Government servant or the pensioner. The Rule 9(6)(a) of Rules, reads as follows: 6) For the purpose of Rules, (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 of if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from the earlier date, on such date. 9. Thus, as seen from the above extracted Rule, the departmental proceedings are deemed to be instituted from the date on which statement of charges is issued. The case at hand, the both charge memos dated 24.04.2017 & 26.12.2023 are beyond four years. 9. Thus, as seen from the above extracted Rule, the departmental proceedings are deemed to be instituted from the date on which statement of charges is issued. The case at hand, the both charge memos dated 24.04.2017 & 26.12.2023 are beyond four years. 10. In so far as the contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader regarding sanction of prosecution by Government vide G.O.Ms.No.64, Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG.I) Department, dated 29.07.2016, is concerned, the same is no longer in force as =Government by G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 17.01.2019, rescinded the same by according permission to conduct enquiry through Commissioner of Enquiries. So for all purposes, the enquiry that is sought to be conducted now has genesis only in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 17.01.2019, in pursuance to which, later the Government, by G.O.Ms.No.43, Agriculture and Co-operation (VIG.I) Department, dated 06.06.2022, accorded sanction to proceed with departmental action. 11. In view of the above, as the articles of charges clearly shows that the incident has happened in the year 2011, and that the petitioner retired from the service on 31.07.2016. The impugned charge memo being issued on 26.12.2023, is clearly beyond four (04) years. Thus, initiation of disciplinary proceedings clearly violates Rule(9)(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules and hence, the proceedings are liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and G.O.Ms.No.43, Agriculture and Co-operation (VIG.I) Department, dated 06.06.2022, issued by the Government according sanction to proceed with departmental action against the petitioner and also the charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.920, Agriculture and Co- operation (VIG.I) Department, dated 26.12.2023, are hereby set aside. It is needless to say, since the charge memo has been set aside, and if there are no other charges or inquiry pending against the petitioner, respondents are directed to release all retiremental benefits to the petitioner, in accordance with law. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.