G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) A very interesting issue arises in this case. The petitioner was initially appointed as ldc on 3-12-1981 and later he was promoted to higher posts. However, the acb had laid a trap on the petitioner on 24-10-1990 when he was working as mandal Development Officer. Consequently he was placed under suspension on 21-11-1990. The said order of suspension was revoked on 19-6-1991. The ACB filed the chargesheet before the Trial Court on 2-11-1992. Consequently, on the filing of the chargesheet, he was once again placed under suspension on 15-2-1993, but, however, the said suspension was revoked by proceedings no. 21368/12/90, dated 6-1993 and he was again reinstated into service in June, 1993. The Criminal Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to suffer two years of rigorous imprisonment, by its judgment dated 11-9-1995, and against the said judgment the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court. But, in the meanwhile, he was retired from service on 31-7-1996. It is also on record that reducing the sentence from two years to one year rigorous, this court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, on 27-7-2001. However, after retirement, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18-5-2000 to the petitioner purported to be under Rule 9 (2) of A. P. Revised Pension rules (for short Rules) proposing to cut 100% pension and also to withhold the gratuity payable to the petitioner consequent on his retirement. In this regard, it is to be noted that after the petitioner retired from service, his entire pension and gratuity was released. Since the petitioner has not filed any explanation to the show-cause notice issued to him, final orders were passed on 4-5-2002 imposing a punishment of 100% cut in the pension permanently and also withholding the gratuity. Against the said order, the petitioner filed O. A. No. 10267 of 2002 before the A. P. Administrative tribunal (for short Tribunal ). The learned tribunal dismissed the said O. A. by an order dated 7-3-2003. Against the dismissal of the above O. A. , the present writ petition came to be filed.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the very show-cause notice issued by the Government is in contravention of Rule 9 of the Rules and consequently the final order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. He submits that when once the petitioner retired from service, though it is open for the Department to initiate Departmental Proceedings but the same is subject to the limitation prescribed under Rule 9 (2) (b) of the Rules. Admittedly in the instant case the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court on 11-9-1995 and the show-cause notice was issued on 18-5-2000, which is clearly beyond the limitation period prescribed under Rule 9 (2) (b) of the Rules. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration this relevant provision of law, but taking into consideration the extraneous matters viz. , the matters which are not relevant, determined the issue. Therefore he seeks appropriate relief. The learned Government pleader for Services-II submits that the government in oase of departmental as well as disciplinary proceedings can invoke Rule 8 of the Rules. When once the petitioner is subjected to disciplinary proceedings and was found guilty, question of limitation does not arise and therefore the Government passed an order under Rule 9 (2) (b) of the rules, which is quite legal and valid. He further submits that since the delay had taken place in obtaining the sanction from the A. P. Public Service Commission that should not be a ground to the advantage of the petitioner. Therefore the order passed by the Tribunal is quite legal and the same cannot be interfered with.

( 3 ) THE facts are not much in dispute as stated above. For proper appreciation of the facts, it is necessary to refer to Rule 9, which reads thus : "right of Government to with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document