1. A retired government employee challenged the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the issuance of a charge memorandum concerning work incidents that occurred over a decade prior to retirement. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 37974
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Nyapathy Vijay, J
P T Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 30023 OF 2026
Important Points
Disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee cannot be initiated for events that occurred more than four years prior to the institution of such proceedings, pursuant to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
Subject
Service Law - Pension and Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980: R.9(2)(b)(ii)
APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991: R.20
Constitution of India: Art.226, Art.14, Art.16, Art.21
Code of Civil Procedure: S.151
APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991: R.20
Constitution of India: Art.226, Art.14, Art.16, Art.21
Code of Civil Procedure: S.151
Headnote
(A) Pension Rules - Disciplinary Proceedings - Limitation Period - Initiation of departmental proceedings against a retired employee is prohibited if the event took place more than four years before such institution, as per Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980. (Para 7, 8)
(B) Administrative Law - Arbitrariness - Issuance of a charge memorandum after a delay of 14 years from the date of the alleged incident is unsustainable and contrary to statutory limitations. (Para 11)
Issues: Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee for incidents occurring 14 years prior is permissible under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
(B) Administrative Law - Arbitrariness - Issuance of a charge memorandum after a delay of 14 years from the date of the alleged incident is unsustainable and contrary to statutory limitations. (Para 11)
Issues: Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee for incidents occurring 14 years prior is permissible under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Harinath Reddy Somagutta
For the Respondents: GP For Services II
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Harinath Reddy Somagutta
For the Respondents: GP For Services II
Table of Contents
2. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings are barred by the limitation period prescribed for initiating inquiries against retired employees as per relevant service pension rules. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. The court found that the disciplinary rules prohibit the initiation of inquiries for incidents occurring more than four years prior to the institution of the proceedings. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 )
4. Departmental proceedings against a retired government servant must be instituted within four years of the event of misconduct, as mandated by the relevant pension rules. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
5. The court set aside the charge memoranda and the initiated departmental enquiry, as they failed to comply with the statutory limitation period required for such actions. (Para 12 )
6. What is the statutory limitation period for initiating departmental inquiries against a retired government employee under the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980?
Under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, departmental proceedings cannot be instituted in respect of any event that took place more than four years prior to the date of the initiation of the proceedings. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
7. Does the four-year limitation period for departmental inquiries apply to events occurring before the employee's retirement?
Yes, for proceedings not instituted while the government servant was in service, the limitation period of four years applies to the event of misconduct, regardless of the employee's retirement status at the time of initiating the enquiry. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
##PAGE1##
APHC010549342026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 30023 OF 2026 Between:
1. P T SRINIVASAN, S/o P.T.Kamala Kanthan Aged about 64 years, Occ Assistant Engineer (Retired) Rio Plot No.314, Phase-3, Road No.23, Rangamayuri Green Hills, Nannur, Kurnool District.
...Petitioner AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by it's Principal Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 522237
2. The EngineerInChief, Water Resources Department Vijayawada AP
520001 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned GO.Ms.No.35 Water Resources (Vig.II) Department Dated 07.09.2026 whereas sanctioned for enquiry under Rule 9 of AP Revised Pension Rules 1980 and GO.Rt.No.501 Water Resources (Vig.II) Department Dated 07.09.2026 whereby issued Article of charge to conduct enquiry under Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 for the incidents pertains to 07.10.2012 to 15.09.2013 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of AP Revised Pension Rules 1980, against Article 14,16 AND 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the judgment rendered by our Hon'ble High Court in WP.NO25846 of 2025 dated22.09.2025 and to set aside the same IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay of all further action of impugned GO.Ms.No.35 Water Resources (Vigil) Department Dated:07.09.2026 whereas sanctioned for enquiry under Rule 9 of AP Revised Pension Rules 1980 and GO.Rt.No.501 Water Resources (Vig.II) Department Dated:07.09.2026 Counsel for the Petitioner: HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order:
##PAGE2## ##PAGE3##HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.30023 of 2026
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of Respondent No.1 in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner after his retirement by issuing G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 07.09.2026 and G.O.Rt.No.501 dated 07.09.2026 issuing Article of charge to conduct enquiry under Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules,1991 as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows:
The Petitioner was appointed as Draftsman Grade-III on
12.03.1986 and subsequently was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1998. On attaining the superannuation, the Petitioner was retired from service on 29.02.2024. While so, charge memo vide G.O.Ms.No.501 dated 07.09.2026 was issued and also initiated departmental enquiry vide G.O.Rt.No.35 dated 07.09.2026.
3. Two Articles of Charges were framed against the Petitioner, which reads as under:
Article of charge-I That the said Sri P.T. Sreenivasan (Retired) while functioning as Assistant Engineer, MI Works, Yemmiganur has recorded the work and recommended the bill for payment despite poor quality of embankment work which resulted in occurrence of a breach in execution of work "Formation of MI Tank across Nallabandvanka near Guvvaladoddi Village of Yemmiganur Mandal in erstwhile Kurnool District." Thus, he has committed dereliction of duties, amounting to misconduct.
##PAGE4##Article of charge-II:
That the said Sri P.T. Sreenivasan (Retired) while functioning as Assistant Engineer, in the aforesaid office has recorded the work and recommended the bill for payment despite inferior quality of CC work in HC Weir and sluices, resulting in rejection of work and thus caused loss of Rs. 10,37,000/- to the Government Exchequer in execution of the aforesaid work. Thus, he has committed
