APHC010721692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 1/2026 Between:

K. Sai Ram ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V V KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.1 of 2026

O R DE R:

1. The Writ Petition is filed questioning the initiation of disciplinary proceedings issued against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.587 dated 17.06.2025 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The Petitioner had retired from service as Municipal Commissioner on 31.10.2019 as per G.O.Rt.No.620 dated 23.09.2019. While so, the impugned Charge Memorandum was issued under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 vide G.O.Rt.No.587 MA & UD (Vig.II) Department, dated 17.06.2025. As per the Charge Memorandum, three Articles of Charges were framed.

3. Charge No.1 is with the regard to the work executed by the Petitioner as Municipal Commissioner, during his tenure from 17.12.2014 to 14.05.2017. Charge Nos. 2 and 3 are in relation to the principle charges. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed on the ground that the impunged Charge Memorandum is contrary to Rule 9 (2) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Revision Pension Rules, 1980.

4. Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, submits that the date of knowledge of the misconduct should be taken as the criteria and that the period of delay cannot be taken into consideration.

5. Heard the respective counsel.

6. The impugned charge memorandum dated 17.06.2025 pertains to the year 2014-2017 and in the interregnum, Petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2019. Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P Revised Pension Rules, 1980 prohibits issuance of charge memorandum with regard to the events that had occurred four years prior to the issuance of charge memorandum. Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) reads as under:

(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 (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.

7. The impugned charge memorandum issued on 17.06.2025 is not in consonance with Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 as highlighted above which states that no charge memorandum for an event that occurred four (04) years prior to the issuance of charge memorandum. In the present case, the alleged event occurred in the years 2014- 2017 and the impugned charge memorandum was issued in

2025 i.e., after a lapse of nearly 7 years.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering a similar provision i.e., Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations in State of U.P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey, 1(1996) 9 SCC 395, held that the incident of loss or misconduct should have happened four years from the date of institution of the proceedings. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below;

“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.

9. In view of the above, no enquiry can be initiated against a