Judgment 1. The present appeal has been filed after 268 days. Only vague pleas have been taken in the application for condonation of delay. There is absolutely no justification to condone the aforesaid delay. 2. The application is thus dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits of the controversy also. The defendant Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. has filed the present appeal. 3. A suit for declaration and for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff claiming that the order dated September 21, 2001 for deducting the amount of Rs.89,924.15 from his pensionary benefits was illegal, bad, violative of principles of natural justice and not binding upon his rights. The plaintiff claimed that he had retired from service on October 31,1998 after rendering more than 38 years of service. It was further claimed that the entire record of the plaintiff during the service career remained unblemished and at no point of time any enquiry proceedings were initiated against him. The defendant defended the order of deduction and claimed that there was a shortage detected in the stores when the plaintiff was incharge. Consequently, the order of recovery was legal and valid. 4. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff only to the extent of Rs.4,246/-. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. The learned first Appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence. It also placed reliance upon Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules to hold that the order of recovery against the plaintiff was totally contrary to the rules, inasmuch as, after the retirement, no major or minor punishment could be awarded against the employee, since the relationship of master and servant had come to an end. It was further noticed that as per the aforesaid rule, the procedure for taking the departmental proceedings against the retirees for the pecuniary loss caused to the Government due to the misconduct or the negligence of the retired employee was provided and the said rule specifically provided that the departmental proceedings could be conducted in accordance with the procedure applicable to the departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made. Thus, it was inferred that the order of recovery also could be passed against the retired employee by following the procedure for imposition of a major penalty. Thus, it was inferred that the order of recovery also could be passed against the retired employee by following the procedure for imposition of a major penalty. Since admittedly the aforesaid procedure had not been followed, therefore, the order of recovery was held to be illegal and bad. The appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and his suit was decreed. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. 5. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.