T. S. Misra, C. J.:- The petitioner retired from the service of the Government of Assam on 31st March, 1977. Charges and statement of allegations were however served on him on 13th November, 1979 alleging that he had caused excess payment on account of carriage of cement on the basis of an invalid tender in disregard of the Chief Engineer's circular. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, P. W. D. Gauhati in­formed the petitioner by his letter dated 9th November 1981 (a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the petition) that the departmental proceedings were being taken against him under Rule 21 (b) of the Assam Services Pension Rules, 1969, hereinafter called "the Rules" instead of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges levelled against him on 26th November, 1979. The Enquiry officer submitted his report dated 17th June, 1981. The Secretary to the Government of Assam by his order dated 1st September, 1982 (copy of which is Annexure 12 to the writ petition) ordered that the gratuity of the officer Shri E. Hussain (the petitioner) be forwarded to the Government to recover partly, pecuniary loss caused to the Government. The petitioner being agrieved has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the said order inter alia, on the ground that the order was palpably wrong and illegal, inasmuch as, the mandatory requirements of Rule 21 (b) had not been complied with. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. The facts stated in the petition thus have remained uncontroverted. Rule 21 of the Rules is in the following terms: "21. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. The facts stated in the petition thus have remained uncontroverted. Rule 21 of the Rules is in the following terms: "21. The Governor of Assam, 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 proceeding, if instituted while the officer was in service, 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 rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service; (b) Such departmental proceeding, 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 Governor of Assam ; (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 Governor of Assam may direct and in accor­dance with 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 Assam (Public) Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed". A bare perusal of Rule 21 makes it quite plain that the authority has a right to with-hold or withdraw a pension or any part of it permanently or for a specified period, if the pensi­oner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. A bare perusal of Rule 21 makes it quite plain that the authority has a right to with-hold or withdraw a pension or any part of it permanently or for a specified period, if the pensi­oner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. For withholding pension, it would be necessary to draw departmental proceedings against the delin­quent. Such departmental proceedings may be instituted while the pensioner was in service or while he was re-employed. The departmental proceedings may also be initiated against the pen­sioner even after his retirement under clause (b) of Rule 21 provided the sanction of the Governor of Assam had been obtained to do so. However, such departmental proceeding cannot be, taken with respect to any event which had occurred more than four years before such institution. Moreover, the proceedings may be conducted only by such authority and at such place as the Gavernor of Assam may direct in that behalf. It also requires that the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed. In the case in hand the petitioner had re tired from service on 31st March, 1977. The departmental proceedings were not initiated against him while he was in service. In fact they were taken against him on 13th November, 1979 when the charges and statement of allegations were issued. In other words, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner after two years and eight months of his retirement. The subject matter of enquiry had also not occurred within four years of the initiation of the proceedings. The purported event had taken place in the year 1974. One of the events had taken place on 4th June, 1975, while the proceedings were taken, as mentioned above, on 13th November, 1979. The Assam Public Service Commi­ssion was also not consulted in the matter before the final order was passed. The petitioner has alleged in paragraph 16 of the petition that no sanction from the Governor of Assam was obtained before initiating the proceedings. The conditions as envisaged by Rule 21 (b) were thus not fulfilled. That being the position, the impugned order was passed in utter violation of Rule 21 (b), the conditions whereof were obviously not complied with. The departmental proceedings could not be taken with respect to a matter which had occurred more than four years before the institution of the proceedings. That being the position, the impugned order was passed in utter violation of Rule 21 (b), the conditions whereof were obviously not complied with. The departmental proceedings could not be taken with respect to a matter which had occurred more than four years before the institution of the proceedings. It could not also take place against the petitioner in the absence of the sanction of the Governor of Assam. Final order could also not be passed without consulting the Assam Public Service Commission. The impugned order being illegal is hence not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. For the reasons in the foregoing the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1st September, 1982, a copy of which is Annexure-12 to the writ petition, is quashed. The Rule is made absolute. Since the petition has not been opposed we make no order as to costs.