HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.4527 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners and Sri V.Ravi Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and at their request, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal when the interim application came up for hearing. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the Government inter alia assailing the order, dated 17.12.2009, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.11541 of 2009, allowing the application purportedly filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, whereby the impugned orders therein, dated 06.06.2009, and the charge memo, dated 01.07.2009 were set at note on the ground that the same was issued far beyond the prescribed period as per Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Admittedly, the facts of the case are that the first respondent-applicant while working as Assistant Conservator of Forests retired from service on 28.02.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. Earlier, a charge memo, dated 27.06.2007, was issued to the first respondent-applicant and the same was set aside by the orders, dated 23.08.2007 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.4273 of 2007 itself. Subsequently, the present charge memo is issued on 01.07.2009. It is this charge memo which has been found fault with by the Tribunal in O.A.No.11541 of 2009 by following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and another V. Shri Krishna Pandey[1] and also the aforesaid rule which prescribes that no such charge memo can be issued for the incident which relates to more than four years from the date of issuance of the charge memo. There being no dispute with regard to the fact that the applicant has already retired and the earlier charge memo was already set at note and also the fact that long period than the one prescribed by the aforesaid rule expired, it is quite desirable that the enquiry should be hastened with and completed at the earliest rather than keeping the issues pending. No doubt, the writ petitioner- State would be entitled to the benefit of the period till the disposal of O.A.No.4273 of 2007 on the earlier occasion on 23.08.2007 and that period cannot be taken into account. Therefore, commencing from there, it cannot be said that the prescribed period is over. We do not find any reason in the impugned order for setting aside the said charge memo issued against the first respondent-applicant and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances, the writ petitioners-State are directed to complete the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that in any event, such an enquiry is not finalized within the time stipulated by this Court, it shall be deemed that the first respondent- applicant shall be entitled to the pension in the normal course. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO 11th April 2011 DR _______________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA [1] 1996 SCC (L&S) 1250