IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15665 of 2008 Between: 1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Govt of AP., Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration AP Hyderabad 3 The Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor 4 The Mandal Revenue officer ,Peddatippa Samudram (PTM) Mandal, Madanapalle Division, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 A.Balarama Raju, Retired Tahasildar R/o.Karveti Nagar, Chittoor District 2 The Accountant General, AP., Hyderabad (R2 is formal party as no relief is sought against him) .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon`ble AP Admn.Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA.No.6343/2001 dated 21.3.2007 as being erroneous,illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.15665 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the decision rendered in O.A.No.6343 of 2001 by order dated 21-03-2007 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The first respondent – applicant filed the above O.A. challenging G.O.Ms.No.473 Revenue (Vigilance-III) Department, dated 10-7-2001 and consequential order issued in G.O.Ms.No.1414 of even date, and seeking a direction to official respondents to regularise the suspension period from 09-5-1990 to 21-6-1991 and break period from 25-1-1997 to 9-2-1997 and release all the pensionary benefits. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, directed the petitioners to regularise the said suspension period as well as break period. Aggrieved thereby, the official respondents preferred this writ petition. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for first respondent. 4. Learned Government Pleader contended that the respondent – applicant had retired from service on 30-4-1997 and the charge-memo was issued much prior to the retirement. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent supported the impugned order. 5. It is seen from the record that the respondent – applicant had retired from service on 30-4-1997 and G.O.Ms.No.473 dated 10-7-2001 had been issued to initiate disciplinary proceedings after the lapse of a period of four years. In fact, the petitioners have permitted the applicant to retire from service and the charges are vague and do not contain specific details. Further, the enquiry was not conducted within reasonable time and initiation of the disciplinary proceedings after the period of four years, falls beyond the period of limitation as stipulated in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Therefore, the departmental proceedings against the first respondent cannot be permitted to continue. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise, with regard to the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. 6. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 22-07-2008 bsc ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}