THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRIAH W.P.No.5285 of 2004 Date of Order: 16-11-2009 Between: The Government of A.P. rep. by Special Chief Secretary, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad and another ..Petitioners And Ch.Surya Prakash Rao ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRIAH W.P.No.5285 of 2004 Oral Order: (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) 1. In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari for calling the records pertaining to the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.1747 of 2003, dated 08-04-2003 and to quash the same. 2. The respondent—applicant while working as Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31-07-1990. While so, he was served with charge memo dated 10-11-2000 to submit documentary proof that he belongs to “Konda Kapu” community on or before 30-11-2000. Accordingly the respondent/applicant submitted his explanation/reply to the said charge memo on 28-11-2000 stating that he was appointed in the year 1953 and never claimed any benefit under Scheduled Tribe category; except the entry in SSLC register, there is no other evidence that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe (Konda Kapu); even after ten years of his retirement and without framing any charges against him, he was not sanctioned pensionary benefits. Not satisfied with the explanation so offered, the Government through G.O.Rt.No.2018, dated 16-10-2001 appointed Enquiry Officer under Rule 20 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 r/w Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The Enquiry Officer so appointed issued a notice to the applicant informing that preliminary hearing of the case will be held on 14-02-2002 of which the applicant said to have attended the enquiry and after recording his statement the Government through Memo No.9979/Vig.I/99-10 dated 03-08-2002 informed the applicant that the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report holding that the charge framed against him has been proved for filing of false community certificate and called upon the applicant to show cause as to why punishment of 25% cut in pension should not be imposed, to which the applicant submitted his explanation. Without considering the same, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.202 dated 17-02-2003, imposing the punishment of 25% cut in pension. Questioning the said G.O. the applicant invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1747 of 2003. 3. The Tribunal after considering the case of the respondent/applicant held Rule 9(2)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short “the Rules”) prohibits conducting of enquiry in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. Further, Rule 9(6)(a) of the Rules says departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which statement of charges is issued to the Government Servant or pensioner or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date; on such date, and the records produced by the department officials do not disclose that the applicant was kept under suspension at any point of time and charge memo was issued only on 16-10-2001. Though earlier the applicant was served with charge memo in the year 1984, to which the applicant submitted his explanation and the Government itself closed the matter stating that, as the applicant was not responsible, it was considered that no further action was called for in the matter, again initiating the disciplinary proceedings on 16-10-2001 after a long lapse of ten years is not just and accordingly quashed the said proceedings. Questioning the correctness of the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant. 5. Rule 9(2)(a) of the Rules deals with departmental proceedings, which reads as under: “9(2)(a): The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service.” Rule 9(2)(b) reads thus: “9 (2) (b): The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment: (i) x x xx x (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution”. 6. Admittedly, in the present case, when the charge memo has been issued in the year 1984, the respondent/applicant has submitted his explanation and Government itself closed the matter holding that as the applicant was not responsible, no further action is called for. No charge memo as such is pending against the applicant as on the date of his retirement as per Rule 9(6)(a) of the Rules. In view of the same, issuance of charge memo dated 16-10-2001 nearly after 11 years of his retirement is prohibited under the above Rules. 7. In view of the same, impugned order passed by the Tribunal quashing the proceedings do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. ______________ G.CHANDRIAH,J. 16-11-2009 Murthy