M VENKATA KRISHNA RAO Vs. DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER GUDIVADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for decision in this miscellaneous case is whether a criminal prosecution launched against a retired public servant governed by the Andhra Pradesh Pension Code is barred by limitation, if such prosecution is launched after the retirement of the public servant in regard to misconduct which took place more than four years before the launching of the prosecution. Our learned brother, Muktadar, Justice opined that on account of the importance of the question, the case may be heard and decided by a Division Bench and that is why this miscellaneous case has come up before us.

(2.) The facts of the case are : The petitioner worked as the Executive Officer of the Guraja Gram Panchayat from 1-7-1973 to 9-8-1975. On the allegation that he committed grave irregularities involving forgery and misappropriation which took place on 2-12-1974 and 29-1-1975, the Collector (Panchayat Wing), Krishna, initiated proceedings against him on 5-11-1978 while he was working as Executive Officer of Tarakatur Gram Panchayat. While the disciplinary proceedings were pending, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on superannuation on 31-3-1979. The disciplinary proceedings have not so far been completed. Even so, on 13-2-80, the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Gudivada, filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sections 409 and 471, I.P.C. in the court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada, in regard to the two incidents which took place on 2-12-1974 and 29-1-1975. On the complaint having been taken on the courts file as C.C. No. 14 of 1980, the petitioner came up to this court with the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in the court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on reaching superannuation on 31-3-1979. Though certain departmental proceedings were initiated against him while he was in service, no judicial proceedings were initiated before his retirement. The judicial proceeding by way of a criminal prosecution was initiated against him for the first time in the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada, on 13-2-1980 in regard to the incidents which took place on 2-12-1974 and 29-1-1975. The incidents in question took place more than four years before the institution of the judicial proceeding. Sri K. V. Subrahmanya Narsu, the petitioners learned counsel, contends that, if no criminal prosecution is initiated against a public servant governed by the Andhra Pradesh Pension Code during the tenure of his office or re-employment, no criminal prosecution can be launched against him after his retirement in regard to misconduct of more than four years old by the date of the prosecution. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the proviso (c) to Article 351-A of the Andhra Pradesh Pension Code and that proviso reads :