BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH, AT: AMARAVATI
WP NO. OF 2025
BETWEEN:
Maley Gangadharamn S/o Late Krishnaiah
Aged about: 67 years, Occ: Retd. Engineer in Chief (R&B Admin) in the
Government of Andhra Pradesh
R/o H.No. 77/10, Plot No. 14, Vivekananda Nagar Colony
Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana, 72.
…...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its
Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Amaravati.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its
Principal Secretary, Road, Transport and Buildings,
Deparment, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amravati.
3. The Engineer in Chief,
Road, Transport and Buildings Department (Transport)
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada.
…Respondents.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Maley Gangadharamn S/o Late Krishnaiah, aged about: 67 years, Occ: Retd.
Engineer in Chief (R&B Admin) in the Government of Andhra Pradesh, R/o
H.No. 77/10, Plot No. 14, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad,
Telangana, 72, having come to down temporarily to Amaravathi, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner herein and hence conversant with the facts of the
present case. Therefore, I crave the leave of this Hon’ble Court to depose as
under.
2. It is submitted that the present writ petition is filed seeking quash of GOMs
No.17 dated 13.03.2025 issued by the Transport Roads and Buildings
(VIG.R&B) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh issuing sanction
under Sub-Clause (I) of Clause B of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 9 of AP Revised
Pension Rules 1980 (impugned GO), for departmental proceedings against
the Petitioner herein.
3. It is submitted that the Petitioner herein worked as Engineer in Chief (R&B
Admin) in the Government of Andhra Pradesh and had joined Government
service on 23.08.1982 as Deputy Executive Engineer in the Roads and
Buildings Department, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District. Since
then, the Petitioner worked in various capacities in various Districts of
Andhra Pradesh and retired as Engineer in Chief (R&B Admin),
Vijayawada on 30.06.208 vide GO Rt No.294, dated 27.06.2018.
4. It is submitted that due to reasons not known to the Petitioner a discreet
enquiry was conducted against him by the Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Vishakhapatnam in which it was allegedly learnt that he misused his
official position and amassed substantial wealth. Basing on such discreet
enquiry the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam
Range registered Crime No.09/RCA-ACB-VSP/2017 for the offences
punishable under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act
for the check period between 23.02.2082 and 01.04.2017. That upon the
registration of FIR, searched were conducted and the Petitioner was
suspended from service on 01.04.2017 to the date of his retirement i.e.
30.06.2018. The main allegation against the Petitioner was that he had
amassed disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 8,09,15589 to his known
source of income. The investigation in the said crime is completed and to
the best of the Petitioner’s knowledge the agency is yet to file the charge-
sheet. The Petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation and has
provided all relevant information to the agency.
5. As matters stood, it is submitted that in the year 2025 the Respondent
authority herein issued the impugned GO issuing sanction under Sub-
Clause (I) of Clause B of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 9 of AP Revised Pension
Rules 1980 for departmental proceedings against the Petitioner herein. The
said GO is dated 13.03.2025 and was sanctioned almost seven years after
the check period in the abovementioned FIR. It is reiterated that the
Petitioner herein retired from service on 27.06.2018 vide GO Rt No.294,
dated 27.06.2018. Thus, the said GO was issued after seven years from the
superannuation of the Petitioner.
6. In this context, and without going into the merits of the present case, it is
submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of UP Vs. Shri Krishna
Pandit held that the initiation of the departmental enquiry against a public
servant after his retirement from service, shall not be instituted in respect of
an event which took place more than four years before such institution.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in other words held that the departmental
enquiry must be instituted before lapse of four years from the date on which
the event of misconduct had taken place if the inquiry is instituted after the
retirement of the officer. It is submitted that this position of law has
solidified itself in legal nomenclature and is no more res integra with
several High Court also having endorsed the aforementioned legal position.
More particularly, the Hon’ble High Court Telangana in WP No. 23108 of
2021 and in common orders vide WP Nos. 25587 and 26311 of 2018 have
also reiterated the same rule position thereby quashing the charge memos
instituted four years after the date of commission of the alleged offence.
7. In the context of this established position of law, it is submitted that the
impugned GO was issued after seven years from the end of the check
period of the said FIR. Hence it is submitted, in the light of the
unequivocal position of law that the impugned memo is illegal and contrary
to established legal principles.
8. It is submitted that upon the initiation of proceedings the Petitioner has also
suffered pecuniary loss in the following manner:
a. Only 75% of the post-retirement pension entitled to the Petitioner herein
per month is being released and 25% of the same is being withheld by the
Authority, vide GO RT No. 317 dated 29.11.2019.
b. The gratuity to the tune of Rs. 12,00,000/- owed to the Petitioner has also
been withheld.
c. The Petitioner has also been paid 50% salary from the date of institution of
proceedings on 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2018 i.e. the date of his retirement.
9. It is submitted that the withholding of the petitioner’s retirement benefits
and salary is also bad in the eye of law considering that the charge memo
and subsequent departmental enquiry which is yet to start is also illegal and
contrary to the principles of law. In this context as well, the precedents
referred to as above are applicable and the Petitioner is entitled to full
pensionary and terminal benefits in the event this Hon’ble Court quashes
the impugned charge memo.
10. Hence the Petitioner herein has no effective alternate remedy but to
approach this Hon’ble Court seeking redress under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
11. It is submitted that the Petitioner herein had also filed WP No. 26750 of
2022 for the payment of encashment of earned leaves and the same is
pending adjudication. This Hon’ble Court was also pleased to pass interim
order in the said WP with a direction to release the Leave Encashment
benefits to the petitioner as per his entitlement, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. However, the
Petitioner submits that he has not instituted any other suit of proceedings
with the releief sough hereunder except to what is stated as above.
12. Other grounds and reasons may be urged at the time of hearing.
In the light of the reasons as stated above and those which may be urged at
the time of hearing, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased pass an order or
direction more so in the nature of writ on mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondent No. 2 herein in issuing GOMs No.17 dated 13.03.2025, initiating
departmental proceedings against the Petitioner herein as illegal arbitrary ultra
vires of the rights of the Petitioner as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution
of India and the AP Pension Rules 1980 and consequently quash the GOMs
No.17 dated 13.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2 herein and direct the
Respondents herein to forthwith release the pensionary benefits and salary with
applicable interest and gratuity due to the Petitioner herein and pass any order
or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.
In the light of the grounds as raised above and those which may be urged at
the time of hearing, pending disposal of the present writ petition, this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of GOMs No.17 dated
13.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2 herein and pass any order or orders
as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.
Solemnly and signed before me
On this _________________. DEPONENT
Before me
Advocate: Hyderabad.
VERIFICATION STATEMENT
I, Maley Gangadharamn S/o Late Krishnaiah, aged about: 67 years, Occ:
Retd. Engineer in Chief (R&B Admin) in the Government of Andhra Pradesh, R/o
H.No. 77/10, Plot No. 14, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad,
Telangana, 72do hereby verify that all the contents stated in the above paras are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and rest of the paras are
believed to be true on legal advice from my Counsel.
Hence, verified on __________ at Amaravati.
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER DEPONENT
