Disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to superannuation remain valid and legally enforceable after retirement. The employer retains the authority to conclude such proceedings to determine pension entitlement, and their continuation is not vitiated by the closure of related criminal cases or the absence of common proceedings with co-delinquents.

ORDER

Heard Sri S.Krishna Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Sri Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Telangana appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

“…….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Charge Memo and Article of Charges issued by the Respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.40, dated 17.02.2010 and the action of the Respondent No.2 & 3 in withholding the retiral benefits including the final pension, gratuity and other benefits on the pretext of issuance of charge memo as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and for being violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and quash/set-aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to finalise and release the full pension and all retrial benefits as due and admissible to the Petitioner from the date of his retirement i.e., 30.06.2011 till the date of realisation, including the arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

Factual background (in brief)

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk/Junior Assistant in the Civil Supplies Department on 01.09.1978 and, in the course of his service, was promoted to the posts of Senior Assistant, Superintendent, Joint Director and ultimately Additional Director. While working as Additional Director in the Office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad, the petitioner was deputed to the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Hyderabad, and assumed charge as Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O) on 07.06.2006.

4. While the petitioner was functioning as C.E.O of the A.P. State Wakf Board, a Charge Memo enclosed with Articles of Charges was issued by the 1^st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.40 dated 17.02.2010 proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘1991 Rules’). The substance of the charges, as set out in the Statement of Articles of Charge (G.O.Rt.No.40), is extracted hereunder:

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

ABSTRACT

PSs – Revenue Department – Sri Shaik Madhar Sheb, the then Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad – Departmental Proceedings under Rule-20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 – Articles of charges – Issued.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

MINORITIES WELFARE (V&C) DEPARTMENT

G.O.Rt.No.40 Dated:17-02-2010

Read: Lr.No.M1/6/Prot/R.R/2005, dated:21-08-2009 from C.E.O., A.P.S. Wakf Board, Hyderabad.

*******

ORDER:

It is proposed to hold an enquiry against Sri Shaik Madhar Sheb, the then Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

2. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in res