ORDER K.N. Singh, J. - Aditya Narain Misra, has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the State Government dated 31st March, 1970. 2. Briefly, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was holding the post of Soil Survey Officer in the Senior scale of U.P. Agricultural Service Class 1, and was posted in the Soil Conservation Section of the Directorate of Agriculture at Lucknow. A charge-sheet containing six different charges of corruption and flagrant violation of the U. P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, was served upon him on 16th November, 1968. The petitioner submitted reply to the charges denying the same. The State Government entrusted the enquiry against the petitioner to the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Evidence was recorded and hearing concluded before the Administrative Tribunal but before it could submit its report to the State Government, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 1st August, 1969. Conseauently the petitioner ceased to be in Government service with effect from that date. The Tribunal, however, submitted its report to the State Government on 2nd August, 1969. In its report the Tribunal held that the petitioner signed false certificates of the sums amounting to Rs. 8470/- towards cost of fabrication and mounting of an all steel Estate Car type bodies on two new jeeps. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner's integrity was not suspected in respect of the verification of the bills but he was guilty of not following the instructions of the Government correctly. The Tribunal proposed an adverse entry in the petitioner's character roll in respect of that charge. The Tribunal held that charges Nos. 2 and 3 were established against the petitioner for misappropriating 2 P. M. Meters and four ceiling fans, as a result of which the Government was out to loss of Rs. 6810-30 Paise. The Tribunal recommended that half of the value of the loss i. e. Rs. 3405/- should be recovered from the petitioner. The Tribunal further recommended awarding of adverse entry in the petitioner's character roll in respect of other remaining charges. In exercise of the powers under Rule 9 (2) of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, the Tribunal further recommended imposition of punishment of reduction in petitioner's pension by Rs. 3405/- should be recovered from the petitioner. The Tribunal further recommended awarding of adverse entry in the petitioner's character roll in respect of other remaining charges. In exercise of the powers under Rule 9 (2) of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, the Tribunal further recommended imposition of punishment of reduction in petitioner's pension by Rs. 20/- per mensem in addition to the recovery of Rs. 3405/- for making good the loss suffered by the Government on account of the misappropriation of fans and meters. The State Government agreed with the finding of the Tribunal and accepted its recommendations, hence it passed the impugned order dated 31-3-1970 awarding adverse entry in the character roll of the petitioner and further for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3405/-from the petitioner and for the reduction of petitioner's pension by Rs. 20/- per month. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order of the State Government was passed on 31st March. 1970. i.e. after about seven months of the petitioner's retirement from Government service at a time when the petitioner had ceased to be in service, hence the State Government could not pass any order of punishment against the petitioner. In the present case the facts are not disputed. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from Government service on 1st August, 1969, on attaining the age of 58 years, no order was passed by the State Government retaining the petitioner in service for the purpose of completion of departmental proceedings. It is further admitted that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner nor the copy of the report and finding recorded by the Tribunal was given to the petitioner prior to the issue of the impugned orders. It is true that departmental proceedings can be taken and punishment can be awarded against a Government servant but no order of punishment can legally be passed against a Government servant after he ceases to be in Government service. Under Fundamental Rule 56 the State Government is empowered to retain the services of a Government servant for the purpose of completing departmental enquiry and awarding punishment to him under certain conditions. Under Fundamental Rule 56 the State Government is empowered to retain the services of a Government servant for the purpose of completing departmental enquiry and awarding punishment to him under certain conditions. If an order is passed by the State Government retaining a Government servant in service, then he continues to be in Government service and is liable to punishment in the departmental enquiry but if no such order is passed and the Government servant against whom departmental enquiry is proceeding is permitted to retire, the State Government ceases to have any power to pass any order of punishment against that Government servant. The principle is well settled as would be clear from the cases of State of Assam v. Padma Ram Borah ( AIR 1965 SC 473 ) and State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram ( AIR 1970 SC 214 ). In the present case admittedly no order was passed by the State Government retaining the petitioner in Government service, instead the petitioner was permitted to retire on 1st August, 1969. The State Government could not pass any order of punishment against the petitioner as he ceased to be in Government service with effect from the date of his retirement. I, therefore, hold that the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of punishment against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the impugned order of the State Government was void because no opportunity to show cause had been afforded to the petitioner before the issue of the said orders and the petitioner was not afforded any reasonable opportunity of defence as contemplated by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It has already been noted that after the Tribunal submitted its findings and recommendations to the State Government no show cause notice was served on the petitioner nor he was supplied with a copy of the findings of the Tribunal. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to show cause as to why the punishment with regard to the recovery of Rs. 3405/- be not imposed on him and further as to why his pensions should not be reduced. On behalf of the State Government these facts are not disputed. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to show cause as to why the punishment with regard to the recovery of Rs. 3405/- be not imposed on him and further as to why his pensions should not be reduced. On behalf of the State Government these facts are not disputed. It was however urged by the learned Standing Counsel that the punishment awarded by the impugned order against the petitioner was a minor punishment and it did not amount to dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank, hence the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution were not attracted at all and the order was valid in view of the provisions contained in rule 55B of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. It is true that the provisions of Article 311' (2) of the Constitution are attracted only in a case where an order of dismissal, removal or reduction is passed. The Article is not applicable to any other order of punishment. Other minor punishments are regulated by rules. In the present case admittedly the impugned order passed by the State Government was neither an order of dismissal nor of removal, and it is difficult to hold that the order amounted to reduction in rank. The petitioner had ceased to be in service on the date of the impugned order; therefore there was no Question of his being reduced in rank. I thus find considerable force in the respondent's contention that the impugned order is not void for not complying with the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. 6. Rule 55-B of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules is worded as under: "55-B (a) whenever the punishing authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a course it may impose the penalty of- (i) censure, or (ii) stoppage at an efficiency bar. Provided that it shall not be necessary to frame formal charges against the Government servant concerned or to call for his explanation. (b) In all cases where a punishing authority imposes the penalty of - (i) withholding increments in the time-scale at stages where there is efficiency-bar, or (ii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders. (b) In all cases where a punishing authority imposes the penalty of - (i) withholding increments in the time-scale at stages where there is efficiency-bar, or (ii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders. Formal proceedings embodying a statement of the offence or fault, the explanation of the person concerned, and the reasons for the punishment shall be recorded: Provided that it shall not be necessary to record such proceedings in cases where a Government servant's increment in the time-scale of his pay. at any stage other than an efficiency-bar. is stooped due to his integrity remaining uncertified." Rule 55 of the said Rules lavs down the procedure in detail which is required to be followed in taking departmental disciplinary proceedings for dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a Government servant. The rule embodies the requirement of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution for giving a reasonable opportunity of defence to the Government servant and for the issue of a show cause notice before an order of punishment is passed. Rule 55-B. however, lays down that if the punishing authority is satisfied that on the material on record the delinquent Government servant should be awarded penalty of censure or stoppage at an efficiency bar, it would not be necessary to frame formal charges or to call for explanation. Clause (b) of rule 55-B further provides that where the punishing authority imposes the penalty of withholding increments in the time scale or if an order is passed for the recovery from the pay of the delinquent Government servant of any amount for making good the loss suffered by the Government due to negligence or breach of orders, formal proceedings are required to be taken embodying a statement of the offence or fault, the explanation of the Government servant concerned and the orders passed giving reasons for awarding the punishment. The proviso to clause (b) of rule 55-B further lays down that for awarding the punishment of stopping the increment of the Government servant in the time-scale of his pay at any stage other than an efficiency-bar it shall not be necessary to record such proceedings if the increment was stopped due to his integrity being uncertified. The proviso to clause (b) of rule 55-B further lays down that for awarding the punishment of stopping the increment of the Government servant in the time-scale of his pay at any stage other than an efficiency-bar it shall not be necessary to record such proceedings if the increment was stopped due to his integrity being uncertified. Rule 55-B therefore makes it clear that no formal disciplinary proceedings are required to be taken for awarding the punishment of censure and stoppage at an efficiency bar but for withholding increments and for recovery from the pay of a delinquent Government servant for any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of order, formal proceedings embodying a statement of the offence or fault, taking of explanation of the person concerned and the reasons for punishment have to be recorded. In the present case the impugned order awarding adverse entry is governed by rule 55-B, but the two punishments, namely the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3405/- from the petitioner and reduction of his pension by Rs. 20/- per mensem are not governed by rule 55-B. The rule does not confer any power on the State Government to make recovery of money from a Government servant who may have retired from service by means of an executive order. Clause (b) of rule 55-B contemplates a situation where the Government servant concerned is continuing in service at the time of the order for recovery of money. The rule is explicit about recovery of amount from pay of the delinquent Government servant. How can the rule be attracted for making any recovery from the pay when the Government servant concerned ceased to be in Government service. The rule authorises recovery from pay and not otherwise. The petitioner had ceased to be in service on the date the impugned order was passed, hence there was no question of making any recovery from the petitioner's pay. I am. therefore, of the opinion that Rule 55-B did not confer any authority on the State Government to pass the impugned order of recovery. 7. The impugned order does not disclose the manner in which the recovery of the said amount of Rs. 3405/- was to be made from the petitioner. I am. therefore, of the opinion that Rule 55-B did not confer any authority on the State Government to pass the impugned order of recovery. 7. The impugned order does not disclose the manner in which the recovery of the said amount of Rs. 3405/- was to be made from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that if the recovery was to be made as arrears of land revenue, there was no law which authorised such recovery-Learned standing counsel however urged that the recovery was to be made by deduction from the pension payable to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Government was not empowered to recover the said amount from the petitioner's pension. Reliance was placed on Articles 351-A and 470 of the Civil Service Regulations which read thus:- "351-A. The President further reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement: Provided that - (a) such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the officer was in service. whether before his retirement or during his re-employment. whether before his retirement or during his re-employment. shall after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be a proceeding under this article and shall be continued by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service: (b) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment - (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President: (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution: and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service: (c) no such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than 4 years before such institution and (d) the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed." 470. (a) The full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. Provided that in cases where the authority sanctioning pension is other than the appointing authority, no order regarding reduction in the amount of the pension shall be made without the approval of the appointing authority." It is admitted that the petitioner was entitled to receive pension. It is further admitted that the grant of pension to the petitioner was regulated by the rules relating to pension contained in the Civil Service Regulations. Article 350 of the Civil Service Regulations lays down that pension of all officers (other than those mentioned in Articles 349, 349-A and 349-B) are regulated by the rules contained in Chapter XV of the Civil Service Regulations. Article 350 of the Civil Service Regulations lays down that pension of all officers (other than those mentioned in Articles 349, 349-A and 349-B) are regulated by the rules contained in Chapter XV of the Civil Service Regulations. It is, however, open to a local Government i. e. the State Government, to frame rules laving down that the services of any class of officers serving under it would not be eligible for pension. Article 351 lays down that the future good conduct shall be an implied condition of Every grant of pension. The sanctioning authority may withhold or withdraw pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. If the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of law action is required to be taken in the light of the Judgment of the Court but in a case where the pensioner is not convicted by a Court of law the Authority competent to grant pension is required to serve a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him, calling upon him to submit his explanation and after considering his explanation the competent Authority may pass an order withdrawing or withholding pension. This procedure is laid down in Article 351. Article 351-A further lays down that the competent Authority may withdraw or withhold a pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a specified period and may further order for the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. Article 470, provides that full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course. Clause (b) of the Article lavs down that if the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory. the Authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. The scheme under the Rules makes it clear that whenever a competent Authority considers it necessary to reduce the pension or to recover any sum for loss suffered by the Government it has to give an opportunity to the petitioner before any order for recovery is made. The scheme under the Rules makes it clear that whenever a competent Authority considers it necessary to reduce the pension or to recover any sum for loss suffered by the Government it has to give an opportunity to the petitioner before any order for recovery is made. Articles 351 (3) and 351-A clearly require the following of this procedure before any such order can legally be passed. Even under Article 470. the Authority concerned has to satisfy itself that the services of the Government servant have been thoroughly unsatisfactory before any order for reduction of the pension is passed. 8. In the present case there is nothing on the record to show that the Authority which was competent to fix the pension of the petitioner had applied its mind to the Question of fixation of pension or reduction of the same. It is admitted on behalf of the respondents that no proceedings were taken under the Civil Service Regulations for fixation of the pension nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause as to why his pension should not be reduced or for the recovery of the said amount of Rs. 3405/- sought to be recovered from him on account of the pecuniary loss suffered by the Government. There is nothing on record to show that the procedure prescribed under Article 351-A was followed. There is further no material on record to show that the competent Authority applied its mind and considered the record of the petitioner's service in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner's service was not thoroughly satisfactory. It is true that under certain circumstances a recovery from the amount payable to a Government servant can be made by the Government to make good its loss. Similarly the sanctioning Authority may issue orders for the reduction of pension of a Government servant but before any such orders are passed the procedure prescribed in the Civil Service Regulations has to be followed and the Government servant concerned has to be given an opportunity. As already held no such procedure was followed nor there is any material record on to show that the petitioner was given any opportunity as contemplated by the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations. In the circumstances. I hold that the impugned order is illegal and void. 9. As already held no such procedure was followed nor there is any material record on to show that the petitioner was given any opportunity as contemplated by the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations. In the circumstances. I hold that the impugned order is illegal and void. 9. It was then urged by the learned standing counsel that pension cannot be claimed as of right, it is a bounty granted by the Government as a matter of grace, hence the petitioner had no right to receive pension. This controversy has now been settled by the Supreme Court in Deoki Nandan v. State of Bihar (1971) (2) SCC 330 = (1971 Lab IC 881 SC). In that case it was held that the right to receive pension was property right, within the meaning of Article 31 and by a mere executive order the State Government cannot withhold the same. It was further held that the claim of a Government servant to pension was a claim to property under Article 19 (1) (g) and any order denying pension affected his fundamental rights. In the case before the Supreme Court, the rules regulating the grant of pension were similar as those contained in Civil Service Regulations applicable to the petitioner. In view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court the submission made by the learned standing counsel must be rejected. 10. For the reasons given above. I allow the petition and quash the impugned order. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.