THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 15295 of 2010 Dated: 12-7-2010 Between: The Principal Secretary to Government of A.P., Municipal Administration and Urban Development (E1) Department, Hyderabad and another …Petitioners and P.Venkat Rao and another. …Respondents ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), by the order dated 25-1-2010 (impugned herein) in O.A.No. 5826 of 2006 quashed the charge memo dated 6-1-2005 in G.O.Rt.No.36 on the ground that it was issued in transgression of the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the 1980 Rules’). Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached this Court seeking Certiorari. The 1st respondent, the applicant in the O.A., retired as a Deputy City Planner. He worked in Vijayawada Municipal Corporation during 19-6-2000 to 21-7-2001 and retired on 31-8-2003 while serving elsewhere. By a charge memo in G.O.Rt.No.36 MA & UD Department, in purported exercise of powers under the 1980 Rules, the 1st respondent is charged with having committed misconduct warranting withdrawal of the whole or part of his pension. Three articles of charges enumerated in G.O.Rt.No.36 pertain to the period of the 1st respondent’s tenure as the Deputy City Planner in Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. The 1st respondent is alleged to have failed to initiate action to prevent unauthorised construction of apartment buildings in the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation; to have wilfully allowed the builders/owners to continue with unauthorised constructions without giving notices; and to have failed to discharge his legitimate duties with due care and diligence, thus causing inconvenience to the general public and adversely affecting the planning activity and causing loss to the Corporation in the matter of building fee and development charges. In support of the second article of charge, namely, the allegation pertaining to the 1st respondent wilfully allowing the builder/owners to continue with unauthorised constructions without giving notices, G.O.Rt.No.36 set out the basis for the charge as the conduct of the 1st respondent in issuing ante-dated notices commencing from the year 2003. The doctoring of the relevant records of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation in 2003, after he left the services of that Corporation is not however a charge framed. As all the charges pertain to the period the 1st respondent served in the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation i.e., during 19-6-2000 to 21-7-2001, and as these charges pertains to a period four years anterior to the date of the charge memo, namely 6-1-2005, the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the 1980 Rules is clearly beyond the period of limitation specified in Rule 9 (2) (b) of the Rules. This is what the Tribunal found and rightly so. The writ petition is thus misconceived and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 12th July, 2010. GRR