The court will not interfere with a charge memo issued by a competent authority unless there is a violation of rules or lack of jurisdiction, and challenging such a memo before submitting a defense is considered premature.

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the impugned G.O.Ms.No.426, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (VIG.IA) Department, dated 17.10.2013, through which sanction was given by the Government to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 9 (2) (b) and (i) of Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.1620 dated 17.10.2013 through which the sole charge had been framed against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that prior to the petitioner’s retirement vide memo dated 28.06.2013, the petitioner was asked to explain with regard to the alleged two contrary reports. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation/representation dated 05.08.2013, providing reasons for taking different view and also stated that in several such cases, no further action was taken and there was no necessity even for calling for explanation. The petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 31.08.2013 upon attaining superannuation without any reference that the petitioner’s retirement was subject to the finalization or initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, all pensionary benefits were released to the petitioner. In view of the same, learned counsel requested this Court to allow the writ petition by setting aside the said impugned G.O.s.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II, basing on the counter submits that, if departmental proceedings were not instituted while a Government Servant was in service including the period of his re-employment, if any, the proceedings can be instituted under Rule 9 (2) (b) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, “the Pension Rules, 1980”). By invoking the above Rule, disciplinary proceedings can be instituted against retired persons in cases of misconduct or misbehavior etc., even though there is no pecuniary loss caused to the Government. In the instant case, the petitioner has submitted two contradictory misleading reports to the Government, on the issue of procurement of HP spares and GI pipes to the RWS&S Sub-Divisions at Ongole and Kandukur in Prakasam District which clearly shows gross negligence exhibited by him towards his legitimate duties and violated Rule (3) of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Therefore, sanction was accorded under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of The Pension Rules, 1980 to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner, vide G.O.Ms.No.426, PR&RD (Vig.IA) Department, dated 17.10.2013. In pursuance of the sanction accorded, the following charge was framed against the petitioner on the alleged allegations vide G.O.Rt.No.1620, PR&RD (Vig.IA) Department, dated 17.10.2013. Therefore, both the G.Os are in accordance with the Rules.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II further submits that by taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances and that the reasons stated by the petitioner are not convincing and the Government have decided and issued orders for initiating disciplinary action by framing the charges against the petitioner, under Rule 20 of A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for short, “the Rules, 1991”) read with Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, 1980., vide G.O.Rt.No.1620, PR&RD (Vig.IA) Department, dated 17.10.2013. The petitioner i.e., charged officer has not submitted his written statement of defense so far. If the petitioner is of the opinion that the charges framed against him are baseless, the petitioner can prove his innocence before the enquiry officer. When there is an opportunity available for the petitioner to prove his innocence before the enquiry officer and filing of these petitions is premature and liable to be dismissed and requested this Court to d