THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the impugned Charge Memo dated 05.05.2017 issued in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.45 of 2013 and served on 23.05.2017 by the 3^rd respondent without jurisdiction and in violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules which causing prejudice in getting implementation of the orders passed in W.P.No.15974 of 2017 dated 28.04.2017 for releasing full pension and Gratuity therefore set aside the same and consequently direct respondents to release my full Pension Gratuity and

other retirement benefits immediately and to pass...”

2. Brief facts:

Petitioner while working as Inspector Prohibition and

Excise, a surprise check was conducted by Anti Corruption Bureau (for short ‘ACB’) Officials in Karimnagar Town on 13.12.2011, a case vide Cr.No.15/ACB-KNR/2011 U/s 13(1)(a)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’), Section 120-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 41(1)(a) and 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) was registered on 14.12.2011 by DSP, ACB Karimnagar and Investigated into. Petitioner

while working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector in Hyderabad Division was issued a Government Memo No.52224/Vig.V(2)/2012-1, dated 16.01.2013, with respect to the case pending before the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings for his alleged involvement in liquor syndicate case. Petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2013 upon attaining the age of superannuation. He was granted a provisional pension to an extent of 75%, it is alleged that his full service pension, commutation and gratuity were wrongfully withheld. Reliance is placed on Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘Rules, 1980’) and averred that without proving the guilt of petitioner entire benefits are withheld.

3. It is averred that no disciplinary proceedings were contemplated till 5^th of May, 2017, (that charge was framed for the case registered on 13.12.2011, beyond 6 years from the date of incident. It is alleged that framing of charge after 6 years of the incident is not permissible under law. It is averred in the affidavit that government vide G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 stipulated a time limit of

3 and 6 months for completion of enquiries in simple and complicated cases and the same has not been followed. It is further averred that the charge memo issued in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.45 of 2013 served on 23.05.2017 is in violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of Rules, 1980 and a direction is being sought to implement the orders passed in W.P.No.15974 of 2017 for release of full pension and gratuity and other retirement benefits.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner while working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector at Karimnagar, a case came to be registered on 14.12.2011 by the ACB. It is further submitted that a charge memo was issued for misconduct under Rule 3(1) & (2) of the A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 r/w Rule 2(b) of A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989 (for short ‘Tribunal Rules, 1989’) framed under the A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 (for short ‘Tribunal Act, 1960’) as amended in 1993. It is also submitted that petitioner retired from service on

28.02.2013 and no charge(s) was/were framed before retirement as contemplated under Tribunal Rules, 1989.

5. It is submitted that “the institution of proceedings against a delinquent officer must be construed to have commenced on the date on which the statement of memorandum of charges has been issued to the Government/public servant or the date from which the officer has been placed under suspension. It is further submitted that these two conditions have not been met with in the petitioner’s case. It is also submitted that proc