Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 925 (AP)

Y. Raja Babu S/o David v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-08-06

NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2025
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of the Respondents in considering the retirement benefits to the Petitioner even though he retired in the year 2016 on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings issued through the charge memo vide proceedings No. CB3/108/(2) Hostel Buldg/2017, dated 22.05.2021. 2. The facts leading to this writ petition are as follows: The Petitioner retired from service as Deputy Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department while working in the Special Minor Irrigation Division, Rampachodavaram on 31.07.2016. While so, a charge memorandum was issued in exercise of power under Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules against the Petitioner on 22.05.2021 vide proceedings No.CB3/108/(2) Hostel Buldg/2017 wherein solitary article of charge against the Petitioner was that the Petitioner had executed and check measured the two hostel building works beyond the sanctioned estimate and administrative sanction without obtaining prior deviation approvals from the competent authority and violating the Codal procedures. The second aspect of the article of charge is that the Petitioner had recommended and submitted the working estimates, revising the rates with modified SSR after concluding agreements and after execution of work utilizing tender savings of 11.61% violating G.O.Ms.No.1 & U.O.Note No.3274. Third aspect of the charge is that the Petitioner allowed and check measured substandard quality of work in first floor slab of work No.2 which is liable for rejection of hostel building to S.T. Girls. For better reference charge No.2 is extracted below: “Recommended and submitted the working estimates, revising the rates with modified SSR after concluding agreements and after execution of work utilizing tender savings of 11.61% violating G.O.Ms.No.1 & U.O.Note No.3274.” 3. In the statement of imputations the vigilance report said to have been issued on 03.10.2016 is the basis for enquiry and that is the only document on which the charge is sought to be sustained against the Petitioner in Annexure-III. 4. The short argument of the counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned charge memorandum is beyond the time period prescribed under Rule 9(2)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and is liable to be quashed as the Petitioner had retired on 31.07.2016. The date of retirement of the Petitioner is not disputed by learned Assistant Government Pleader. 5. The short argument of the counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned charge memorandum is beyond the time period prescribed under Rule 9(2)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and is liable to be quashed as the Petitioner had retired on 31.07.2016. The date of retirement of the Petitioner is not disputed by learned Assistant Government Pleader. 5. Reasoning: The Rule 9(2)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules provides for initiation of disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee after retirement from service. The rule restricts the power of the State Government to issue charge memorandum in respect of any event which took place beyond four years from the date of institution of the charge memorandum. Rule 9(2)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules extracted below: “9(2)(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. (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service.” 6. As apparent from the highlighted part of the above rule, no charge memorandum can be issued with regard to an event that occurred four years prior to the retirement. In the present case, the impugned charge memorandum issued on 22.05.2021 though the Petitioner had retired from service on 31.07.2016 cannot be sustained as the same is beyond the time period of four years from date of retirement. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions: (i) The charge memorandum dated 22.05.2021 is quashed. (ii) The Respondents shall release the retirement benefits to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.