The Andhra Pradesh High Court unequivocally holds that no departmental proceedings can be instituted in respect of events which occurred more than four years before such institution against a retired government servant, as per Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The Court affirms the abatement of proceedings upon the employee’s death and mandates prompt release of pensionary benefits, strengthening binding precedent for service jurisprudence in the State.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/1437/2023 of SHAIK KALESHA Vs THE STATE OF AP CNR APHC010029502023 |
| Date of Registration | 23-01-2023 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | NYAPATHY VIJAY |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge (Hon’ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Pensionary Rights |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court found that the impugned Charge-Memorandum was issued more than four years after the relevant incidents, directly contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. It reaffirmed that no departmental proceedings can be initiated after this statutory limitation. Further, upon the death of the employee, any such proceeding stands abated per Rule 9(vii). Accordingly, the respondents were directed to release pensionary benefits to the legal heirs, with interest, and treat certain suspension/out-of-employment periods as on duty for pension fixation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | None expressly cited in the order |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpretation and application of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) and Rule 9(vii) of the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980; undisputed facts admitted by Government |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Late Shaik Kareem, Junior Assistant, retired from Venkatagiri Municipality on 31.12.2007. He had faced criminal proceedings and was dismissed after conviction, then acquitted and reinstated in 2004. Years after retirement, a Charge-Memorandum was issued on 27.05.2013 alleging financial misconduct—well beyond the four-year limit. Kareem died in 2019 without conclusion of the enquiry; his family was denied pensionary benefits, leading to the writ petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, in interpreting similar pension/disciplinary provisions |
| Follows | Follows the text of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) and Rule 9(vii) of AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that departmental proceedings against retired public servants cannot be initiated for events over four years old, as per Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
- Confirms that upon the death of the delinquent officer, pending departmental enquiry abates automatically under Rule 9(vii).
- Mandates authorities to promptly release pensionary and death benefits once proceedings have abated; failure exposes government to liability with interest.
- Provides binding authority for expeditious resolution of similar disputes involving time-barred or abated service disciplinary proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the statutory framework, focusing on Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which restricts initiation of departmental proceedings to within four years of the relevant events.
- It observed that the Charge-Memorandum in question had been issued six years after retirement and long after the alleged incidents, making it time-barred.
- The Court further applied Rule 9(vii), which abates departmental proceedings upon the death of the government servant.
- The respondents themselves admitted that the charges were issued beyond the prescribed limitation and that proceedings abated with the employee’s death.
- Accordingly, the Court quashed the ongoing disciplinary proceedings and directed authorities to release all resultant pensionary dues with interest, and treat relevant periods of suspension/out-of-employment as duty for pension fixation, but declined to remit pay/allowances claims to authorities due to lapse of time.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that the impugned Charge-Memorandum was issued more than four years after the relevant events and after retirement, violating Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
- Submitted that with the death of late Shaik Kareem, all disciplinary proceedings stood abated under Rule 9(vii).
- Sought issuance of pensionary and death benefits to the legal heirs, including treating certain suspension/out-of-employment periods as on duty.
Respondents
- Did not dispute the factual position that the Charge-Memorandum was issued beyond the four-year limitation.
- Accepted that proceedings abate upon the death of the employee and agreed that pensionary benefits were to be released accordingly.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s father, late Shaik Kareem, retired as Junior Assistant from Venkatagiri Municipality on 31.12.2007, after periods of suspension, dismissal, acquittal, and reinstatement related to earlier criminal proceedings. Despite retirement, a Charge-Memorandum under Rule 20 of APCS & CCA Rules, 1991 was issued against him on 27.05.2013 for alleged losses to the municipality—more than four years after the events. Kareem passed away in 2019 without conclusion of the enquiry. Authorities withheld pensionary benefits posthumously, triggering the present writ petition by his son.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which mandates that departmental proceedings cannot be instituted in respect of any event occurring more than four years prior to such institution.
- Also relied on Rule 9(vii), which provides that any ongoing disciplinary enquiry abates upon the death of the charged official.
- The statutory interpretation adopted was strict (“shall not…”), affording no discretion for relaxation or exceptions in the case of limitation or abatement.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were present in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations were recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Strictly reaffirms and applies the limitation and abatement provisions of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) and Rule 9(vii) of the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980.