Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/15283/2026 of BAYYAVARAPU SURESH BABU Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 6 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15283/2026 Between: 1. BAYYAVARAPU SURESH BABU, S/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC
APHC010264632026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 15283/2026
Between:
1. BAYYAVARAPU SURESH BABU, S/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
(RETD)
INDUSTRIES
SS
COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT,VIJAYAWADA,
A.P
PRESENTLY
R/O
H.NO.7-1-35/101, FLAT NO.301 SRI DEVI APARTMENTS, SHYAMKARAN
ROAD,
AMEERPET
HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA STATE
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government Industries
and
Commerce
Department, A.P Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P - 522 238
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings in pursuance G.O.Rt. No. 114,Industries86
Commerce Department, dated 04- 07- 2025 by the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in contravention to Rule (9) (2) (b) (ii) of A.P Revised Pension
Rules, 1980 and the clarification issued under circular Memo No.
993083/FINOl-HROl-HROCLI/9/2019- HR-lIl, Finance (HR. Ill- Pension) Department dated 15-03-2020, and consequently set aside the same and to direct the respondents to release all the retiral benefits of the petitioner, by calling for entire record culminating into issuance of impugned G.O.Rt. No. 114,Industries85
Commerce Department, dated 04-07-2025, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the G.O.Rt. No. 114, Industries 85 Commerce Department, dated 04- 07-2025issued by the respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
WRIT PETITION NO: 15283/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent-Authorities in initiating departmental proceedings against the Petitioner in pursuance with G.O.Rt.No.114, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 04.07.2025, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Director on 15.10.1987 by way of direct recruitment through Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC). After serving for more than 33 years, the Petitioner had retired from his service as Executive Director of APMSME Development Corporation on 31.03.2021 upon attaining the age of superannuation.
3. While so, a Charge Memorandum was issued to the Petitioner on 04.07.2025 vide G.O.Rt.No.114, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 04.07.2025 with regard to acquisition of disproportionate assets. Questioning the impugned charge memorandum referred to above, the Writ Petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted 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 and the impugned charge memorandum cannot be sustained as it is issued beyond four years from the date of incident.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services submitted that the impugned charge memorandum is issued against the Petitioner with respect to acquisition of disproportionate assets and an enquiry is required to be conducted to arrive at a final conclusion.
6. Heard the counsels.
7. As per Rule 9 (2) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Revision 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. In the present case, the allegation is that the Petitioner had failed to obtain prior permission for acquisition or disposal of immovable properties and assets in his name and in the names of his family members, and failed to submit the Annual Property Returns during his service, except for the year-2012 during his tenure from 1988 to 2017. The impugned charge memorandum was issued after retirement of Petitioner on 04.07.2025 and there is a delay of more than 04 years in issuing the Charge Memorandum from the date of retirement of Petitioner on 31.03.2021. In view of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of A.P Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the charge memorandum cannot be sustained.
9. In fact, the Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) provides four (04) years as outer limit from the date of event and similar view was taken by 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, wherein it was held that the incident of loss or misconduct should have happened four years from the date of institution of the proceedings.
10. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, with following directions:-
(i) . The impugned Charge Memorandum issued vide G.O.Rt.No.114, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 04.07.2025 is quashed.
(ii) . The Respondents shall pay the Retirement Benefits due to the Petitioner.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
1(1996) 9 SCC 395
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Date: 07.09.2026 chs
WRIT PETITION NO.15283/2026 Dated 07.09.2026
chs