JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the issuance of charge-sheet dated 3.5.1995 as illegal and unsustainable in law. He, therefore, prays that same be quashed by writ of certiorari and then a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondents to release all retiral benefits to the petitioner including pension and gratuity. The petition is opposed by the State on the ground that initiation of the departmental enquiry and issue of charge-sheet dated 3.5.1995 is legal and proper. 2. The petitioner was recruited in the service of the Government of Rajasthan on 10.12.1955 as Lower Division Clerk. After four years of service, he was promoted as U.D.C. and in Nov. 1963, he was made as Accounts Clerk. In Sept. 1981, he acquired the post of Accountant by promotion and in March, 1993, he was further promoted to the post of Accounts Officer and thereafter, the petitioner superannuated from the Government Service on 30th June, 1994, this date of retirement requires (acquires?) significance in light of the provisions of Rule 170, by application of which the departmental enquiry is sought to be commenced against the petitioner, the beginning of which is made by issue of charge-sheet dated 3.5.1995. 3. It is the normal practice to initiate the proceedings for disciplinary action against a Goverment servant during the constitution of his service and usually the Government servant is harassed by departmental enquiry after his superannuation or retirement. However, in order to protect interest of the Government in matters of monetary loss caused to the State by acts of employee while he was in employment, provision of Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951 is made to start departmental proceedings in such cases. The rule reads thus : "170. However, in order to protect interest of the Government in matters of monetary loss caused to the State by acts of employee while he was in employment, provision of Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951 is made to start departmental proceedings in such cases. The rule reads thus : "170. Reccovries of losses from the pension - The Governor 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 or the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:- (a) Provided that 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; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more that 4 years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor 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 event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and (d) the Rajasthan Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation. (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 event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and (d) the Rajasthan Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation. - For the purposes of this rule, - (a) A departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which charges together with a statement of allegations on which they are based, or the proposal of Government to take disciplinary action together with the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken, are issued to the officer or pensioner, of if the officer has been placed under suspensation from an earlier date, on such date, and (b) A judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted:- (i) in case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of police officer, on which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made, and (ii) in the case of a civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court." 4. A careful scrutiny of this Rule discloses that it is a codification of the normal administrative law in relation to departmental proceedings against the employee after his retirement. This Rule provides that departmental proceedings can be commenced after the retirement of a Government servant only after observing two conditions which according to me are mandatory in nature; (i) the incident in relation to which or the conduct in relation to which the departmental proceedings are sought to be commenced should have taken place not more than four years prior to date of superannuation and even in such event, the commencement must have prior sanction of the Governor of Rajasthan. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the incident out of which the departmental proceedings arise having accrued more than four years prior to the date of superannuation, the commencement of proceedings is void and without jurisdiction. The factual allegations in this regard are not disputed and the only question which remains to be decided is whether the charge-sheet can be sustained in the circumstances undisputed. 5. The factual allegations in this regard are not disputed and the only question which remains to be decided is whether the charge-sheet can be sustained in the circumstances undisputed. 5. The charge-sheet dated 3.5.1995 charges the petitioner with dereliction of the duty while working as Accountant between 21.12.1083 to 31.3.1989 and the second charge is that the petitioner refused to accept the notice and charge- sheet dated 29.6.1994 on 30.6.194 while he was in the employment of State which also amounts to misconduct. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, alleges that the incident having taken place prior to four years, the charge sheet cannot be sustained. In so far as the second charge is concerned, according to the learned counsel, it cannot be a misconduct at all and therefore, the charge-sheet is not unsustainable, in so far as the charge No. 2 is concerned. 6. Certain facts creating certain doubts regarding application of the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 170 need to be noticed. Earlier writ petition No. 3575/94 was filed by the petitioner seeking certain directions regarding payment of his pension wherein, he had alleged that departmental proceedings were allegedly contemplated against him. In that petition, it was averred that a charge-sheet dated 29.6.994 was offered to the petitioner on 30.6.1994 but the same was not accepted by him. The charge-sheet dated 29.6.1004 deals with only one charge is which identical to the one mentioned in the subsequent charge- sheet dated 3.9.1995. It is, therefore, the contention of the respondents that this charge-sheet dated 29.6.1994 was offered or sought to be served on the petitioner on 30.6.1994. Consequently, it cannot be said that the enquiry is commenced after the retirement of the petitioner. It is, however, pertinent to note that on 7.7.1995, an order was passed by the Government withdrawing the charge-sheet dated 29.6.1977 and therefore, there is no question of that charge-sheet being served on the petitioner or refusal of the petitioner to accept that charge-sheet amounted to service or avoidance of charge-sheet amounts to misconduct. The second charge in charge-sheet dated 3.5.1995, therefore, fails. With it also failed the arguments of the State that the enquiry was commenced prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner or on the date of the retirement of the petitioner. The second charge in charge-sheet dated 3.5.1995, therefore, fails. With it also failed the arguments of the State that the enquiry was commenced prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner or on the date of the retirement of the petitioner. Admittedly, the charge sheet impugned in this petition was issued on 3.5.1955 i.e. after the retirement of the petitioner and, therefore, requirements of Rule 170 of obtaining approval or sanction of the Governor and restricting the period of four years prior to the date of retirement must apply with full vigour. So applied, it is obvious that the charge-sheet dated 3.5.1995 which seeks to prosecute the petitioner for dereliction of the duty for a period ending on 31.3.1989 is unsustainable beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 170. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 3.5.1995 is quashed and the respondents are directed to release all pensionary benefits including pension and gratuity to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.Petition allowed. *******