THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.2568 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) Heard both sides. The petitioners herein, who include the State Government and the Director of Health, invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while seeking a writ of Certiorari assailing the order dated 02.11.2006 in O.A.No.25 of 2006 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Brief facts of the case are that in an application filed by the respondent herein, who is a retired Chief Medical Officer of Health, Vijayawada, before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, he impugned the proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.533 dated 16.04.2005, whereby disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, on a sole charge that during the period from 20.03.1996 to 26.05.1996, he made appointments of badli workers in Tirupati Municipality and allowed them to draw the payment as per Government pay scales. The contention of the respondent herein before the Tribunal was about the factum of initiation of disciplinary proceedings at a belated stage that too after he attained the age of superannuation. After contest by the respondent herein, the petitioners herein filed a counter-affidavit before the Tribunal pointing out the seriousness of the allegation and the necessity to hold such an enquiry, which is permissible under law. The Tribunal, after considering the merits of the case, especially after referring to Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Rules’), held that having regard to the allegation pertaining to the limited period from March to May, 1996 and the respondent attained the age of superannuation in the year 2004 itself, the disciplinary proceedings initiated on 16.04.2005, which are almost nine years after the alleged period, the same are barred and contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the O.A.No.25 of 2006 on 02.11.2006. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court by filing this writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and also on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that there is no dispute in regard to the limitation as prescribed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of the Rules and there is also no dispute that the disciplinary proceedings are initiated much later the alleged period. Therefore, on the face of it, the disciplinary proceedings appear to be quite illogical and unsustainable and even no explanation or reason is forthcoming on the part of the petitioners as to why no such proceedings would possibly be initiated all along, either in the counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal or in the affidavit filed in this writ petition in that regard. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J) 20th September, 2010 _________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) GHN