( 1 ) THIS petition filed by Harihar Bhole Nath Misra challenging the judgment and order dated 18. 1. 2002 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal rejecting the claim petition of the petitioner against the order of punishment passed under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services regulations. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was inducted in the government service as Routine Grade Clerk in the office of the Inspector General of Registration, U. P. on 4. 1. 1958. On promotion being granted from time to time, he retired from the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration which post he was holding since 1. 1. 1985, on 31. 3. 1993 on reaching the age of superannuation. ( 3 ) PRIOR to his retirement on 31. 3. 1993, he was suspended on the charge of causing loss of revenue to the Department vide order dated 24. 3. 1993 and a charge-sheet of the same date was also issued to the petitioner levelling a charge with respect to under-valuation of the 12 sale deeds. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension by means of a writ petition, operation of which was stayed by this Court vide order dated 30. 3. 1993. The petitioner however, submitted a detailed reply to all the charges levelled against the petitioner, on 11. 11. 1994. The second reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 4. 9. 1998, though final inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer on 4. 1. 1997 which was served upon the petitioner on 19. 11. 1998. The punishment order dated 7. 1. 2000 was passed imposing forfeiture of the entire pension and gratuity and also recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,02,279. 50 by first adjusting it from the pension payable and the gratuity payable and rest of the amount to be realised from the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner by filing a civil suit. ( 4 ) TO cut the controversy short, suffice would be to mention that the petitioner apart from raising various other grounds for attributing illegality and arbitrariness in the departmental proceedings and also in the award of punishment specifically took the plea before the State Public Services tribunal that the petitioner since retired on 31. 3. ( 4 ) TO cut the controversy short, suffice would be to mention that the petitioner apart from raising various other grounds for attributing illegality and arbitrariness in the departmental proceedings and also in the award of punishment specifically took the plea before the State Public Services tribunal that the petitioner since retired on 31. 3. 1993, no disciplinary proceedings could have been continued after the retirement of the petitioner without taking prior sanction of the governor under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations and that the same having not been done, the entire proceedings are vitiated and consequently the order of punishment can also not be sustained. This plea has been taken in paragraph 4. 27 of the claim petition. ( 5 ) THE State Government filed a written statement before the Tribunal wherein the said plea was not controverted rather in paragraph 10 of the written statement, reply to the averments made in paragraph 4. 27 was given but this fact was not disputed. The Tribunal however, dismissed the claim petition after recording the finding that since the order of punishment has been passed by the Governor with the approval of the Public Services Commission which is evident from the punishment order itself, therefore, it presumes that the Governor had granted sanction for the continuance of the proceedings under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations after retirement. On the aforesaid findings, the claim petition was dismissed. ( 6 ) IN the writ petition preferred by the petitioner, again a specific plea has been taken in paragraph 40 that Governor of U. P. , did not pass any order under Regulation 351-A for continuing the enquiry after his retirement nor at any point of time, either before the petitioners retirement from service w. e. f. 31. 3. 1993 or thereafter till passing of the impugned order dated 7. 1. 2000, passed any order directing that proceedings were to be taken under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations. 3. 1993 or thereafter till passing of the impugned order dated 7. 1. 2000, passed any order directing that proceedings were to be taken under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid paragraph has been replied in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit which contains a combined answer to paragraphs 26 to 42 of the writ petition, but in this reply again the state Government did not dispute the specific challenge made by the petitioner regarding non taking of the prior sanction of the Governor under Regulation 351-A for the continuance of the proceedings after the retirement of the petitioner. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Dr. L. P. Mishra has relied upon the aforesaid provision of regulation 351-A and in particular Sub-clause (iii) of the proviso and submitted that in the absence of sanction being taken by the Governor for continuing the disciplinary proceedings after the retirement, neither the proceedings could have been continued nor any punishment order could have been passed and therefore, all the action taken by the respondents including the award of punishment is per se illegal and without any authority of law. He has also placed reliance on the case of State of U. P. and Anr. v. Shri Krishna Pandey, 1996 III AD (SC) 290, AIR 1996 SC 1656 , 1996 (3) SCALE 1 , (1996) 9 SCC 395 , [1996 ] 3 scr 183, 1996 (2) UJ 23 (SC ). ( 9 ) IN response to the aforesaid submissions, Shri Sanjay Bhasin learned Standing Counsel made an attempt to justify the action of the State Government by asserting that since the punishment order has been passed by the Governor and with the approval of the Public Service Commission, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly presumed that the proceedings were duly allowed to be continued by the Governor after retirement and therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. He has also submitted that a bare reading of Regulation 351-A would conclude that in case any disciplinary proceeding is not pending before retirement of a Government servant and such proceedings are to be instituted after the retirement of the Government servant or during his re-employment, it is only then in view of the aforesaid provision and particularly sub-clause (iii) of Proviso (a) of the Regulation 351-A, the same has to be instituted with the prior sanction of the Governor. Interpreting the aforesaid provision of Sub-clause (iii) of Proviso (a) of the aforesaid Regulations and also Clause (i) of the aforesaid provisions, he reinforced his arguments with the help of the explanation given thereunder that since the disciplinary proceedings in the instant case stood instituted on the date of the passing of the suspension order and the issuance of the chargesheet, when the petitioner was in service, there was no requirement of taking sanction of the Governor under the provisions of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service regulations for continuing the disciplinary proceedings after his retirement. ( 10 ) THE argument that the impugned order of punishment having been passed by the Governor after the approval by the Public Service Commission, would make the order valid as it would be presumed that the sanction of the Governor for the continuation of the proceedings after retirement is in-built or inherent in the order of punishment has to be considered in the light of the provisions which are applicable in such cases and in particular Regulation 351-A, which reads as under : "351-A. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a person 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 the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement : provided THAT-- (a) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment,- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor; (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made. (b) Judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a); and (c) The Public Service Commission, U. P. shall be consulted before final orders are passed. " ( 11 ) FOR the purpose of the aforesaid argument, we would like to observe that the award of punishment may be passed by the Governor and with the approval of the Public Service commission but the same cannot be taken to be a substitute or equivalent to the sanction which is otherwise required to be obtained from the Governor before continuing the departmental proceedings after the Government servant attains the age of superannuation. The sanction for continuance of the proceedings is to be taken after retirement of the officer and in the absence of which, the proceedings cannot continue whereas award of punishment is an act which takes place after the departmental inquiry is concluded, though in technical term, the departmental inquiry would be concluded when the final order is passed. The grant of sanction of Governor seeking permission for passing the order of punishment or passing an order of punishment by the governor, would not mean nor would presume sanction under Regulation 351-A for continuance of proceedings after retirement. ( 12 ) THE two stages are different and the Governor has to act and apply his mind on entirely different considerations, at the two different levels. ( 13 ) THE Governor while granting sanction for continuance of the enquiry after retirement may consider besides other things, the reasonableness of continuance of such an enquiry and all other relevant factors for proceeding with the enquiry on seeing the nature of the charges, their gravity etc. and if he feels satisfied that the enquiry should be instituted or is to be continued after retirement, he will grant the necessary sanction or else he may refuse such a sanction, on his own discretion. ( 14 ) AT the stage of passing of the final order, the Governor has to see the charge-sheet and the inquiry report and all other relevant materials which prove the charges and thereafter the governor can adjudge the requirement of the award of appropriate punishment. Thus, the award of punishment by the Governor cannot, be taken to be a substitute for sanction for the purpose of regulation 351-A, nor there can be any presumption of such a sanction being granted merely because the Governor has either approved or awarded the punishment. ( 15 ) LEARNED Counsel for the State also submitted that no sanction of the Governor is required if the disciplinary proceeding is already pending on the date of retirement of the Government servant as Regulation 351-A would apply only in cases where the enquiry is to be instituted after the retirement or during the course of re-employment of the Government servant. ( 16 ) IN instituting the disciplinary proceedings against a Government servant during the course of his service tenure, no sanction of Governor is required. ( 16 ) IN instituting the disciplinary proceedings against a Government servant during the course of his service tenure, no sanction of Governor is required. Unless the Governor is the appointing authority, who has to pass the order for instituting the disciplinary proceedings, he has no role to play in institution of such proceedings. Even if the Governor as the appointing authority institutes disciplinary proceedings when the Government servant is in service, he would be exercising his powers under Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, if said Rules are applicable, or under the U. P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, as the case may be. But such order of the Governor would not be an order under regulation 351-A, as the said provision would only come into effect when the Government servant has retired. ( 17 ) IN cases, where the Governor is not the appointing authority, disciplinary proceedings would be initiated under the orders of the appointing authority, where also Governor would have no role in the institution of such proceedings. It is for the State Government or the appointing authority to institute the disciplinary proceedings, as the case may be. In other words, it can be said that for instituting enquiry against a Government servant during tenure of his service, no sanction of Governor is required within the meaning of Regulation 351-A nor there would be any occasion to obtain such a sanction nor there would be any occasion for the Governor to apply his mind, on the circumstances given under the said provision. ( 18 ) THERE can be instances where enquiry is instituted prior to the retirement of the Government servant, as in the instant case, but in such cases also, Governor would have no occasion to apply his mind as per the requirement of Regulation 351-A, as the said provision would become applicable only after the retirement of the Government servant, that too when an enquiry is sought to be instituted after his retirement or is to be continued thereafter. ( 19 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, in an enquiry which is instituted during the service tenure, recourse to regulation 351-A is not taken nor can be taken and, therefore, if the argument of the learned counsel for the State is assumed to be correct, namely, that it is only for the purpose of instituting the disciplinary proceedings after retirement or during the course of re-employment such a sanction would require, it would mean that the enquiry which has been instituted during the service tenure of the Government servant under the given Service Rules, would be allowed to continue even after his retirement without any sanction of the Governor at any point of time though the punishment would be awarded to him, if any, under the aforesaid provision of regulation 351-A and not under the Service Rules under which disciplinary enquiry was instituted. This would mean that although the punishment would be awarded under the provision of Regulation 351-A but enquiry under the said provision was neither instituted nor was directed to be continued after retirement at any point of time. That being so, the very purpose of the aforesaid provision would be frustrated. The punishment under the said provision also cannot be awarded if the enquiry has not been held under the said provision. It is only after the retirement of the Government servant that the requirement of Regulation 351-A is to be fulfilled. The sanction of the Governor thus, would be required both for initiating disciplinary proceedings after retirement of the Government servant or during the course of his re-employment and also for continuance of the disciplinary proceedings after his retirement even in cases where the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated or instituted prior to the retirement of the government servant. ( 20 ) IN the case of State of U. P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey, 1996 III AD (SC) 290, AIR 1996 SC 1656 , 1996 (3)SCALE1, (1996)9 SCC395, [1996 ]3 SCR183, 1996 (2)UJ23 (SC), the Apex Court in paragraph 6 has observed as under : "it would thus be seen that proceedings are required to be instituted against a delinquent officer before retirement. There is no specific provision allowing the officer to continue in service nor any order passed to allow him to continue on re-employment till the enquiry is completed, without allowing him to retire from service. There is no specific provision allowing the officer to continue in service nor any order passed to allow him to continue on re-employment till the enquiry is completed, without allowing him to retire from service. Equally, there is no provision that the proceedings be initiated as disciplinary measure and the action initiated earlier would remain unabated after retirement. If Rule 351-A is to be operative in respect of pending proceedings, by necessary implication, prior sanction of the Governor to continue the proceedings against him is required. " ( 21 ) A Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Pradeep Kant, J.) was a member in the case of State of U. P. and Ors. v. R. C. Misra and Anr. : W. P. No. 1292 (S/b) of 2002 following the aforesaid judgment held that no departmental proceedings can continue against the government servant after his retirement unless the sanction under Regulation 351-A of the Civil service Regulations is obtained. ( 22 ) NO provision has been brought to our notice nor any rules have been placed before us, which would permit the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of a government servant, without the sanction of Governor, nor any Rule has been indicated which would permit the disciplinary proceedings once initiated during the course of service to remain continued even after retirement. On retirement of a Government servant, the relationship of master and servant ceases and, therefore, unless there is a Rule to that effect that the disciplinary proceedings already in vogue would continue even after retirement and for that purpose, the government servant would be deemed to be in service, no disciplinary proceedings can continue after retirement of the Government servant. It is for this purpose alone that provision of regulation 351-A has been framed. ( 23 ) THE Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, AIR 1999 SC 1841 , [1999 (82) FLR 143], JT1999 (3)SC 53, (1999)I LLJ1236 SC, 1999 (2)SCALE545, (1999)3 SCC666, [1999 ]2 SCR354, considered the effect of retirement of an employee of the Corporation on the pending departmental enquiry and held as under : ". . . no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation. . . no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation. In view of the absence of such a provision in the aforesaid regulations, it must be held that the corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision of conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 3. 6. 1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement. " ( 24 ) THUS, a departmental enquiry cannot proceed after retirement, unless due sanction under regulation 351-A is obtained, and the enquiry is held under that very provision, which gives a complete procedure and the manner in which the enquiry has to be held and what punishment can be awarded, if the misconduct given therein is established in such proceedings. ( 25 ) FOR understanding the meaning and import of the aforesaid provision of Regulation 351-A, it would also be relevant to mention that there is a class of Government servants, whose appointing authority is not the Governor and there are Government servants, whose appointing authority is the Governor. ( 25 ) FOR understanding the meaning and import of the aforesaid provision of Regulation 351-A, it would also be relevant to mention that there is a class of Government servants, whose appointing authority is not the Governor and there are Government servants, whose appointing authority is the Governor. If a disciplinary enquiry is to be instituted against a Government servant either, of whom appointing authority is the Governor or not, or during the course of his re-employment, unobjectionably, sanction of the Governor is required as per the provision of Regulation 351-A. In case the argument of the learned Standing Counsel that since the order has been passed by the governor after the approval of the Public Service Commission, therefore, requirement of regulation 351-A has been complied with, is accepted, it would mean interpretation of regulation 351-A in two different ways for the Government servants by making an artificial classification i. e. with respect to one set of Government servants, whose appointing authority is the Governor and the other set of Government servants, whose appointing authority is not the governor. Such an interpretation would lead to anomalous results and would also negate the provisions of Regulation 351-A in respect of those Government servants, whose appointing authority is the Governor. The interpretation so made does not flow from the aforesaid provision and rather defeats the very meaning and purpose of the same. ( 26 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has also argued and placed certain decisions in support of his submission that even otherwise on the charges, no proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner and that no punishment could have been awarded to him in respect of his functions, which he discharged while exercising his quasi judicial power unless the charge of malafide and extraneous consideration was pleaded and established for which there is no iota of evidence to hold that the petitioner has acted in such a manner. ( 27 ) ANOTHER argument, has been raised by the counsel that since the petitioner has retired 12 years back and that now continuing the proceedings under Regulation 351-A would mean continuance of proceedings after four years period which has been prescribed as the maximum period under the aforesaid regulations for initiating the proceedings. ( 27 ) ANOTHER argument, has been raised by the counsel that since the petitioner has retired 12 years back and that now continuing the proceedings under Regulation 351-A would mean continuance of proceedings after four years period which has been prescribed as the maximum period under the aforesaid regulations for initiating the proceedings. ( 28 ) LEARNED Counsel for the State, however, in response, submitted that the charges are serious and that merely because on technical grounds, the punishment awarded cannot be sustained, it cannot divest the right of the State to continue the proceedings in accordance with law and that since the enquiry in this case was instituted when the petitioner was in service, the period of limitation of four years, prescribed under the Regulations, would not come in the way. ( 29 ) WE do not find it appropriate to address ourselves to the aforesaid arguments as we have already found that due procedure as provided under Regulation 351-A was not adopted while continuing with the disciplinary proceedings, after retirement of the petitioner and, therefore, proceedings taken thereafter and the findings recorded as well as punishment awarded cannot be sustained. ( 30 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the disciplinary proceedings taken after retirement of the petitioner stand vitiated and consequently the order passed on the basis of such proceedings is also bad in law. ( 31 ) WE thus, allow the writ petition. The impugned judgment and order dated 18. 1. 2002 passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed. The punishment order dated 7. 1. 2000 is also quashed. Liberty is given to the State Government for continuing the proceedings in accordance with law, as may be admissible and permissible. ( 32 ) DR. L. P. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that though no relief was claimed before the Tribunal regarding payment of leave encashment, gratuity and salary for the months of February and March, 1993 but he makes a prayer for payment of the aforesaid amounts in this writ petition. ( 33 ) SINCE this matter was not the subject matter before the Tribunal, we do not intend to enter into the aforesaid claim nor the same can be looked into in the present writ petition. ( 33 ) SINCE this matter was not the subject matter before the Tribunal, we do not intend to enter into the aforesaid claim nor the same can be looked into in the present writ petition. ( 34 ) HOWEVER, we provide that in case the petitioner makes a representation for the aforesaid relief, the same may be considered by the authority concerned in accordance with law, keeping in mind the relevant provisions of the rules, expeditiously. ( 35 ) THE writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. . .