An 'accusation' begins the investigation into a criminal complaint. It is, for example, the witness statement evidence of a person who claims to have been raped.
Based on this the state investigates (in England the police) and eventually it will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to 'charge' the subject of the accusation with the crime or crimes that are described by the accusations made. In England the police refer the evidence to the decision-making lawyers in the CPS. The CPS lawyers decide whether there is sufficient evidence of a crime(s) (e.g. in England they must deem it is more than 50% likely the subject will be found guilty at trial, and that it is in the public interest to prosecute the subject). If so the charge(s) will be turned into a formal document termed an 'indictment' and this will detail which law(s) the suspect is alleged to have broken and will briefly describe how he/she is said to have broken it/them. The suspect is formally 'charged' by the police and brought before a court to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty to the charge(s) and, depending on plea, preparations are made for a trial or for sentence.

Bad work. Correction so late. Why?

Please also explain the difference between "accused" and "charged". The retraction is meaningless unless sufficient context is given.

Also, who did the accusing? Was it the state, or the individual involved?