THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI DATED: 10-02-2010 WRIT PETITION No. 1844 OF 2010 Between: Sala Lakshmi ..... PETITIONER AND The High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad rep., by its Registrar and two others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 1844 OF 2010 ORDER: (per Sri A. Gopal Reddy, J) This writ petition is filed challenging proceedings dated 07-08-2009 of the disciplinary authority – respondent No.2 proposing to hold enquiry against the petitioner on the charges framed against her which are annexed to the proceedings. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired on 31-07-2009 on attaining the age of superannuation while working as a Junior Assistant in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu, East Godavari District. While she was in service, show cause notice dated 12-03- 2009 was issued to her as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her. But, no enquiry was initiated against her which was pending as on the date of superannuation. Under Rule 9 (2) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, ‘the Rules’), any departmental proceedings not instituted while the government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall not be instituted except with the sanction of the Government. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 also clarifies that the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the government servant or pensioner who has been placed under suspension from an earlier date. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been suspended on initiation of the departmental proceedings nor any charge sheet has been issued on the date when she attained the age of superannuation. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent cannot proceed with the enquiry pursuant to the impugned proceedings unless necessary sanction is obtained from the Government to proceed as such. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 07-08-2009. However, this order will not preclude the 2nd respondent from initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after following the Rules. A. GOPAL REDDY, J NOUSHAD ALI, J 10-02-2010 ks