JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. On 9.2.2006 this Court considering the importance and urgency of the case that pertains to non-payment of the retiral benefits till date to the Petitioner who was suspended on 28.8.98; 4 days ahead of his superannuation on 1.9.98, directed to post the matter on 22.2.2006 with the following direction to the learned State counsel. In the meantime, Mr. Roy, learned State Counsel would take necessary instructions as to what further steps the Respondent authorities contemplate to take in the departmental proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide communication dated 5.1.2004. As the Petitioner, in the meantime, has retired from service and the criminal proceeding on the same charges have been closed acquitting him therefrom, the learned State counsel by the next date fixed would take instructions so that appropriate orders can be passed. 2. The matter was not listed on the date fixed. On the other hand, it was listed on 3.3.2006 on which date there was no representation and accordingly the matter was directed to be listed after a week. 3. On 17.3.06 the case was listed and on that day, on the prayer of Mr. B.C. Choudhury, learned State counsel, further one week time was granted pursuant to the order dated 9.2.2006 directing the case to be listed for motion hearing on 24.3.2006. 4. On 24.3.2006 this matter was adjourned till today. 5. Today when the matter is taken up for motion hearing, Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned State counsel has informed the Court that he has not received any instruction and accordingly prayed for further adjournment. 6. The practice of seeking adjournment on the ground of non-receipt of instruction or information by the learned State counsel representing the State-Respondents is a regular and usual feature. It has become the common phenomenon that whenever a direction is given by the Court to the learned Govt. counsel, they are not able rather have failed to furnish any information as directed on the fixed returnable date. 7. It is also a routine affair that when the matters are fixed, even no records are produced and more significantly when a particular counsel appears on a particular day, on the next date fixed, another counsel would appear and the earlier counsel who was directed to obtain instruction would be found absent and the alternate counsel cannot stand the query and naturally fumbles. 8. 8. Despite several request and also judicial authorities in this regard (See 2002 (1) GLT 497 : (2002) 2 GLR 591 in a case of Tori Nyokir and Anr. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors.), no action has been taken from the end of the State Govt. to file counter or to place information. It is really very sorry state of affairs. Beyond that, this Court has nothing to say. 9. In view of the above situation, this Court has no option but to enter into the merit of the case considering the seriousness of the issue raised herein, though no assistance has been forthcoming from the ends of the State-Respondents. 10. Heard Mr. M.N. Nath, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned State counsel appearing for the State-Respondents. 11. The case of the Petitioner herein is that he, being a Medical Graduate, joined the Department of Health Services, as Asstt. Surgeon on 1.8.1967 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Joint Director of Health Services in the Health and F.W. Deptt. Govt. of Assam on 29.7.1998. Ultimately he retired on 1.9.98 in the said capacity. However to his utter dismay, four days ahead of his retirement i.e. on 28.8.1998, he was suspended by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Health and F.W. Department, with immediate effect pending drawal of departmental proceeding. 12. Since the date of retirement as mentioned above, till 4.1.2004, no steps have been taken by the State-Respondents to initiate any departmental proceeding and resultantly the Petitioner has been deprived of his due retiral benefits. 13. Only on 5.1.2004, the Respondent No. 1, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Health and Family Welfare (A) Department, issued show cause to the Petitioner under Rule 9 of the Assam Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India levelling as many as 5 (five) charges as reflected on the said communication itself as regards mis-appropriation of public money. 14. Simultaneously, the State also instituted a criminal proceeding against the Petitioner for the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC and the same was registered as G.R. Case No. 1364/98 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta. 15. 14. Simultaneously, the State also instituted a criminal proceeding against the Petitioner for the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC and the same was registered as G.R. Case No. 1364/98 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta. 15. In the said criminal case, the learned Magistrate, by his judgment and order dated 18.10.04 acquitted the Petitioner along with one Pradip Kr. Das on benefit of doubt observing that the prosecution case was weakened for lack of documentary evidence as well as no supportive evidence against the accused persons. 16. After such acquittal in the criminal case, the Petitioner filed an appeal on 1.11.04 before the Respondent No. 1 for regularization of his service and releasing of all pensionary benefits which have been withheld till date. 17. Nevertheless, no action has yet been taken for which the Petitioner has been compelled to move this Court by filing this writ petition for redressal of his grievances. 18. As has already been noticed above, the Court has been detained from getting any information in this regard from the end of the State-Respondents. Pertinent to mention that it is a case of a retired Doctor who rendered more than 30 years of his service on regular basis without any blemish in his service career, but was put to suspension immediately before four days of his retirement and continued to be deprived of his pensionary benefits from the end of the State-Respondents for last seven years without taking any steps either to complete the disciplinary proceeding or to pass necessary orders as regards his pensionary benefits from the end of the State-Respondents though he was acquitted from the criminal charges based on same set of accusation mentioned in the show cause. 19. The entire action on the part of the State-Respondents is in total contravention of the statutory provision as well as contrary to the law laid down in the judicial pronouncement. As per Rule 21 of Assam Services (Pension) Rules (for short 'the Rules') a departmental proceeding is required to be initiated against an officer after his retirement with the sanction of the Governor of Assam for an event which took place within the period of four years before such institution. As per Rule 21 of Assam Services (Pension) Rules (for short 'the Rules') a departmental proceeding is required to be initiated against an officer after his retirement with the sanction of the Governor of Assam for an event which took place within the period of four years before such institution. In the instant case, it appears from the perusal of the Annexure-2 to the writ petition that show cause notice dated 5.1.2004 was issued to the Petitioner for drawing up disciplinary proceeding on the basis of the charges of gross negligence of Govt. duty and mis-appropriation of huge amount of Govt. money during the period from 11.12.97 to 10.8.98 and admittedly the said event occurred beyond the four years of statutory period from the date of institution of the disciplinary proceeding i.e. on 5.1.04. That apart, the Annexure appended herein do not reflect that the departmental proceeding was initiated with the sanction of the Governor. In view of the same, the initiation of instant departmental proceeding itself is violative of Rule 21(b)(i) and (ii) of the Rules which reads as under: 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- (b) Such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment. (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 20. (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 20. In M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 equivalent to AIR 1999 SC 1416 , Apex Court, dealing with the question of suspension and departmental enquiry vis-a-vis simultaneous continuance of criminal proceeding, held in paragraphs 34 and 35 that when both the proceedings i.e. departmental enquiry and criminal proceeding were based on the same set of facts and the Court had already acquitted the Appellants by rejecting the prosecution story, findings recorded against the Appellant in a departmental enquiry could not be sustained. In the case at hand the Petitioner got acquitted in the criminal case i.e. G.R. Case No. 1364/98 on the charge of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC and on the same set of charge, the departmental proceeding has been initiated and as such by applying the ratio of Paul Anthony's case (supra), the impugned departmental proceeding cannot be permitted to continue. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety and also having regard to the aforesaid provision of law as well as the cited case, the Court is of the view that it is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly both the impugned suspension order dated 28.8.98 and show cause notice dated 5.1.04 stands quashed. 22. The State-Respondents particularly the Respondent No. 1, Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Health and Family Welfare (A) Department, Dispur is directed to release all the pensionary benefits and all other consequential benefits to which the Petitioner is entitled after his retirement within 90 days from today. 23. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed at the admission stage. Petition allowed