P.B.V.Krishna, vs The State Of Telangana,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3362 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

               WRIT PETITION No.4845 of 2019

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the

impugned charge memo in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.614 of

2013 issued by the 3rd respondent for the incident relating to

the year 2011 i.e., after the date of retirement of the

petitioner, contrary to Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of A.P. Revised

Pension Rules, 1980, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the

respondents.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner, who was working as Assistant Prohibition &

Excise Superintendent, retired from service on 31.05.2018

and that a charge memo was issued to him on 24.07.2018,

which was served on him on 04.02.2019 for the incident

pertaining to the year 2011. The counsel for the petitioner

submits that in the similar circumstances, a Division Bench

of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi WP. No.4845 of 2019

Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh, has passed a

common order dated 15.11.2018, in W.P.Nos. 25587, 26311

and 26381 of 2018, by relying on the judgment in State of

U.P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey, 1wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, while dealing with initiation of a departmental enquiry

against the respondent therein after his retirement from

service, observed that as in Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the Rules of

1980, Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations,

which was under consideration, provided that departmental

proceedings, if not instituted before retirement, shall not be

instituted in respect of an event which took place more than

four years before such institution, as in Rule 9 (6) of the

Rules of 1980, the Explanation to Regulation 351-A provided

that departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been

instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner

were issued to him or from the date of his being placed under

suspension, if applicable. Ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that departmental proceedings must be instituted

before lapse of four years from the date on which the event of

misconduct had taken place.

(1996) 9 SCC 395

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi WP. No.4845 of 2019

4. Admittedly, in this case, the charges pertain to the

period of more than four years prior to the retirement of the

petitioner. Hence, in view of the above circumstances, this

Court opines that the charge memo dated 24.07.2018 is

liable to be quashed.

5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, quashing the

charge memo dated 24.07.2018 issued against the petitioner.

1st respondent is directed to fix the pension payable to the

petitioner and pay the retirement benefits such as full

pension, retirement gratuity, encashment of Earned Leave

and other benefits to the petitioner together with interest

@ 9% per annum from the date they become due till the date

of payment. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J

Date: 20.10.2023 lk

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi WP. No.4845 of 2019

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

WRIT PETITION No.4845 OF 2019

Date: 20.10.2023

lk