IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.23940 OF 2019 DATE : 17.02.2026 Between:

G. Uppalaiah …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Excise-I) Department, Telangana Secretarial, Hyderabad & 2 others …Respondents

ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Charge Memo dated 21.12.2017 issued by respondent No.3 in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.246 of 2013, served to the petitioner on 20.01.2019 in respect of an incident relating to the year of 2011, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of T.S. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, ‘the Rules’) and contrary to the common judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.25587 of 2018 and batch dated 15.11.2018 and consequently to set aside the same and pass appropriate orders.

2. Heard Sri Rama Lingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as a Prohibition & Excise Head Constable and he has retired from service on 30.04.2017. He submitted that after his retirement, the petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo dated 21.12.2017, which was served on the petitioner on 20.01.2019 in respect of an incident which happened in the year 2011. Therefore, according to him, the issuance of Charge memo itself is in violation of Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the Rules. Learned counsel further submitted that this issue is covered by a common order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25587 of 2018 and batch dated 15.11.2018 and that the said judgment has been followed in several subsequent cases including W.P.No.47139 of 2018 and W.P.No.4845 of 2019, wherein the Writ Petitions were allowed.

4. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.47139 of 2018 has held as under:-

“8. In a similar issue, a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4845 of 2019 as follows:

“A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh, has passed a common order dated 15.11.2018, in W.P.Nos. 25587, 26311 and 26381 of 2018, by relying on the judgment in State of U.P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with initiation of a departmental enquiry against the respondent therein after his retirement from service, observed that as in Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the Rules of 1980, Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, which was under consideration, provided that departmental proceedings, if not instituted before retirement, shall not be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution, as in Rule 9 (6) of the Rules of 1980, the Explanation to Regulation 351-A provided that departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner were issued to him or from the date of his being placed under suspension, if applicable. Ultimately the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct had taken place.”

09. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. In view of the above facts, impugned Charge Memo dated 02.02.2018, is liable to be quashed.”

5. Respectfully following the aforementioned common judgment of the Division Bench, and in view of the fact that in this case, the Charge Memo was issued after six years from the date of incident and subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner, the charge Memo dated 21.12.2017 issued to the petitioner is hereby set aside.

6. Accordingly, the Charge Memo, dated 21.12.2017 is set aside, and the Writ Petition is allo