THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 16556 of 2011 Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G. Shankar) The petitioners seek for a writ of Certiorari to quash the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), Hyderabad in O.A. No. 6623 of 2008, dated 4.5.2010. The 1st respondent was the petitioner before the Tribunal. He was a retired Forest Range Officer. With regard to certain financial irregularities committed by him during the year 2002-03, a vigilance report was submitted on 23.10.2006. Basing on the vigilance report, a charge memo was issued on 1.5.2008. Subsequently, a G.O. was issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 35, dated 2.4.2008 according sanction to conduct departmental enquiry against the 1st respondent under Rule 9(2) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Revised Pension Rules’). On the basis of the said G.O., a charge memo was issued on 1.5.2008. The 1st respondent sought for the quashing of G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 2.4.2008 as arbitrary and illegal and for the consequential stopping of the disciplinary proceedings. Through the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the proceedings were initiated against the employee beyond four years from the date of the incident and after the retirement of the 1st respondent and that the same was in violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Revised Pension Rules. Consequently, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 2.4.2008 was set aside, which resulted in the stopping of the disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the Government preferred the present writ petition. Under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Revised Pension Rules, enquiry can be initiated and the action of an employee can be examined subject to the condition that the enquiry is within four years from the date of the incident if the employee has already retired from service. Admittedly, the enquiry was initiated more than six years after the incident. The G.O. permitting the Government to proceed against the 1st respondent in this background is violative of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Revised Pension Rules. The Rules provide that Government is entitled to relax the Rules. However, the enquiry should be conducted by Government only in respect of retired employees according to Rule 9(2)(b)(i). While so, the impugned G.O. did not specify as to who should conduct enquiry. On the top of it, the charge memo was issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest, in accordance with G.O.35. The G.O. thus suffers from excessive delegation of the powers to the Chief Conservator of Forest. Consequently, the Tribunal considered that G.O. Ms. No. 35, dated 2.4.2008 was illegal and set aside the same. Where the departmental enquiry was sought to be initiated after more than four years from the date of the incident, when the first respondent has retired, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in concluding that G.O. Ms. No. 35 was illegal and struck down the same. There is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is justified and does not need any interference. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 16.6.2011 _______________ K.G. SHANKAR,J pnb