JUDGMENT - CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS T.K., J.:---The petitioner was serving in State of Maharashtra as Deputy Engineer, P.W.D. He retired from service in the year 1987. It is alleged that during the year 1981-82 along with other officers he has committed serious offences punishable under sections 120-B, 400, 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1)(c), (d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer then was working at Satara District, has falsely accepted and signed delivery challans, advice note and indent and accepted carting bill for loading and unloading Karad to Satara. These offences were alleged to have been committed during 1981-82. The complaint has been filed before the police in the year 1983. On 25-8-1989 the sanction for prosecution was obtained and in the year 1990 after investigation the papers have been filed before the Court. 2-A. Heard Counsel for the petitioner Shri Anturkar and the learned A.P.P. Ms. Usha Kejariwal. The main contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that in the light of Rule 27(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982, the prosecution is not maintainable and therefore liable to be quashed the proceedings before the Special Judge, Satara and Special Case No. 5/90. Rule 27(3) of the aforesaid Rules reads as follows:--- "Rule 27(3).---No judicial proceedings if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which took place more than four years before such institution." 3. In the aforesaid Rule it is clearly laid down that the prosecution if at all to be launched before the Court against a retired Government servant for any offence committed while he was in service, it should be done within four years from the date of commission of the offence. Here, admittedly the offence was committed during 1981-82 and the prosecution was instituted in the Special Court in the year 1990. Evidentially the said prosecution is barred under Rule 27(3) of the Rules, as it was filed after 4 years after commission of the offence. 4. A.P.P., Ms. Here, admittedly the offence was committed during 1981-82 and the prosecution was instituted in the Special Court in the year 1990. Evidentially the said prosecution is barred under Rule 27(3) of the Rules, as it was filed after 4 years after commission of the offence. 4. A.P.P., Ms. Usha Kejariwal has brought to my notice a decision of the learned Judge of this Court reported in (Prabhakar v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1992(1) Bom.C.R. 17 , in which validity of the sanction for prosecution against a Government servant was considered. It has been held in that case that in the case of offence of serious nature no limitation under Rule 27 can be applied. I find this judgment will not have of any help to the facts of this case. The allegation against the petitioner as I noted earlier that by his alleged conduct he had caused a loss to the Government for an amount of Rs. 2,851/-. Therefore, I do not think it is a very serious offence in order to apply the aforesaid judgment. According to me, Rule 27 is directly applicable in this case and no prosecution has been launched as mandatory by that rule within four years from the commission of offence. In view of the above the writ petition is to be allowed. In the result the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause 'A'. No order as to costs. Prayer Clause A :--- "That this Honourable Court, be pleased to quash and set aside, the proceedings viz. the proceedings in Special Case No. 5/1990, in presently pending the Court of the learned Assistant Session Judge, Satara against the petitioner inter alia herein, as contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982 as well as contrary to the circular bearing No. MGM-1462/150324-G dated October 22nd, 1962." Writ petition allowed. -----