WP/30022/2026 of Gujjula Sreenivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 15 October 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.34, dated 07.09.2026 and G.O.Rt.No.500 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 Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 1993 and subsequently promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 2005 and as Executive Engineer in the year 2009. On attaining the superannuation, the Petitioner was retired from service on 31.07.2025. While so, charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.500 dated 07.09.2026 was issued and also initiated departmental enquiry vide G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 07.09.2026.

3. Two Articles of Charges were framed against the Petitioner, which reads as under: Article of charge-1: That the said Sri G. Sreenivasulu (Retired) while functioning as Executive Engineer, MIW Division, Kurnool has check measured

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. Article of charge-II: That the said Sri G. Sreenivasulu (Retired) while functioning as Executive Engineer, in the aforesaid office has check measured 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 dereliction of duties, amounting to misconduct.

4. The only ground urged by the Petitioner is that the impugned Charge Memorandum is contrary to Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, which provides an outer limit of 4 years from the date of incident as the period of limitation within which the Charge Memorandum can be issued. In this case, the incident occurred in between the years 2011 and 2012 and Charge Memorandum was issued on 07.09.2026, i.e., more than 14 years from the date of incident.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on instructions, does not dispute the time gap in between the occurrence of incident and issuance of charge memorandum against the Petitioner.

6. Heard Sri S.Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

7. As per Rule 9 (2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the disciplinary enquiry can be initiated within 04 years from the date of the incident. Rule 9 (2) (b) of the A.P. Revision Pension Rules, 1980, reads as under:

9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension :

(2) (b) The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment:

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution;

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government Servant during his service.

8. As per the above provision, no enquiry can be initiated against a retired employee with reference to the incident which is four years prior to the date of issuance of the Charge Memorandum. The

impugned charge memorandum was issued after retirement of Petitioner on 07.09.2026. There is a delay of 14 years in issuing the Charge Memorandum to the Petitioner from the date of incident.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering a similar provision i.e., Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations in State of U.P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey1, held that the incident of loss or misconduct should have happened four years from the date of institution of the proceedings. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below; “But the events of misconduct etc. which may have resulted in the loss to the Government or embezzlement, i.e., the cause for the institution of proceedings, should not have taken place more than four years before the date of institution of proceedings. In other words, the departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct etc. had taken place.”

11. As stated supra, the Charge Memorandum was issued on 07.09.2026 with reference to incidents that occurred in between the years 2011 to 2012 and the same cannot be sustained.

12. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with following directions:-

(i) The impugned Charge Memorandums issued vide G.O.Rt.No.500 and G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 07.09.2026 are set aside.

1(1996) 9 SCC 395

(ii) There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 16.10.2026 KLP