THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.17785 of 2009 Date: 30.08.2011 Between: Govt. of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Transport, Roads & Buildings Dept., Hyderabad, and another .. Writ Petitioners AND A. Bapi Raju, Retired Executive Engineer (R & B), W.G. District (C/o. Dr.A. Rama Krishna Raju, M.D., A.S. Rao Nagar, Near Indian Gas Godown, Bhimavaram-534 202, W.G. District). .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.17785 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao) The Government and Engineer-in-Chief (Roads & Buildings), Hyderabad filed the instant writ petition, aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2007 in O.A.No.5774 of 2005 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. By the said order, the learned Tribunal set aside the articles of charge communicated vide G.O.Rt.No.1042, Transport, Roads & Buildings (S.1.2) dated 17.09.2003 as being in contravention of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (Revised Pension Rules). The sole respondent retired as Executive Engineer in R & B Department on 31.08.1999. It appears that the Vigilance & Enforcement Department verified the purchases of caution boards during 1997-1998 to 1999-2000 in R & B Division, Bhimavaram where annual expenditure exceeded Rs.5,00,000/-. The Vigilance and Enforcement Department found inter alia that the respondents committed irregularities in purchase of caution boards. These irregularities in purchase orders were based on quotations beyond powers, the letters addressed to the firms calling for quotations were not available in the office files, in the case of purchase orders issued in 6/99 to 8/99, no quotations were called for, the sales tax was not recovered properly and the material supplied by one of the vendors is not as per the specifications in the purchase order. The Government then considered the matter and accorded sanction under Rule 9(2)(b) (ii) of the Revised Pension Rules to institute the departmental proceedings. Sequentially, they also issued G.O.Rt.No.1042, dated 17.09.2003 communicating the articles of charge along with the statement of imputations of misconduct. The respondent was directed to submit written statement of his defence within 10 days. In the original application filed by him, the respondent contended that Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Revised Pension Rules prohibits enquiry. Considering this aspect, the learned Tribunal observed. On perusal of the imputations it is crystal clear that the allegations pertain to the year 1997-1998. If at all the respondents are serious enough to pursue the matter and bring the alleged culprits to the book, they should have swiftly acted in the matter instead they have slept over the matter and opened their eyes only after four years of the retirement of the applicant i.e., 31.8.1999 till the date of issuance of the impugned memo i.e., 17.9.2003... The aforesaid Rule clearly puts an embargo on the respondents for initiating disciplinary proceedings after completion of four years of retirement. The Charge Memo, dated 17.9.2003 has been issued beyond four years. The contention of the counsel for the applicant can very well be appreciated, as the impugned action of issuing the Charge Memo is directly hit by Rule 9 (1) (b) of the Revised Pension Rules. This action of the respondents itself is sufficient to quash the impugned Charge Memo. In this writ petition, the Government Pleader for Services-II submits that it is only after the submission of the report by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, the irregularities in the purchase of caution boards came to light and therefore, the period of four years for the purpose of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Revised Pension Rules shall have to be reckoned from the date of submission of report by the Vigilance Department. We are afraid that we cannot accept the said submission. Rule 9(2)(b) reads as under. 9 (2) (b) The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment: (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; and (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. A plain reading would disclose, no doubt, that the departmental proceedings if not instituted while the government servant was in service “shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution”. As per Rule 9(6) of the Revised Pension Rules, 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 the date on which such government servant was placed under suspension before his retirement. There is no dispute that the respondent was not placed under suspension and the articles of charge are with regard to the event that allegedly took place during 1997-1998. Therefore, the issue of G.O.Rt.No.1042, dated 17.09.2003 is clearly prohibited by the Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Revised Pension Rules. We do not find any reason to differ the view taken by the Tribunal. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 30.08.2011 Isn