JUDGMENT Honble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against orders dated 23.12.1989 and 17.5.1991 passed against the petitioner after his retirement. Through the said orders withholding of pension to a certain extent has been directed. The incident on the basis of which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which culminated in the impugned orders took place in the year 1981 at Aligarh where petitioner at that time was posted as Bhoomi Sangrah Adhikari (B.S.A.) - (Soil Conservation Officer). The charge against the petitioner was that some cement sent by Satna Cement Factory to Aligarh was left in the open on the Railway station and due to heavy rains on 17.8.1981 the cement was spoiled. The specific allegation against the petitioner was that he did not take proper care to protect the cement from the rains. It was further alleged that the damage to the cement caused a loss of about Rs.1.5 lacs to the government. The cement was sent through railway wagon. Petitioner has alleged that on 17.8.1981 i.e. the date on which the cement arrived at Aligarh railway station he was on leave. 3. Decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings was taken through order dated 4.9.1982. The punishment awarded was 10% reduction in pension for ever and deduction of 1/3rd of Rs.1,47,546/- from the gratuity of the petitioner. The amount of Rs.1,47,546/- was assessed as loss to the Government due to damage to the cement on 17/18th August, 1981. Charge-sheet was sent in February, 1986 however, according to the petitioner it was served upon him on 20.8.1986. Inquiry Officer gave report against the petitioner. Thereafter show cause notice in respect of proposed punishment was sent on 23.12.1989-Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Petitioner gave reply to that show cause notice on 4.2.1990 asking for copy of the enquiry report. Reminder was also sent on 17.7.1990 and 7.5.1991 by the petitioner. Thereafter punishment order was passed on 17.5.1991, copy of which is Annexure-15 to the writ petition. Inquiry report was submitted on 3.12.1988. In the punishment order it is mentioned that on 4.2.1990 petitioner sent his reply to the show cause notice. 4. In-fact communication of the petitioner dated 4.2.1990 Annexure-12 to the writ petition is no reply to the show cause notice. Through the said letter petitioner only requested for supply of copy of Inquiry report. 5. Petitioner retired on 31.7.1984. In the punishment order it is mentioned that on 4.2.1990 petitioner sent his reply to the show cause notice. 4. In-fact communication of the petitioner dated 4.2.1990 Annexure-12 to the writ petition is no reply to the show cause notice. Through the said letter petitioner only requested for supply of copy of Inquiry report. 5. Petitioner retired on 31.7.1984. 6. Departmental proceedings may be instituted even after retirement of an employee. However, with regard thereto there are certain limitations provided under Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulation. It is provided under the said regulation as under : “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.” 7. If it is held that institution of departmental proceedings starts with service of charge-sheet then the proceedings were beyond jurisdiction as the event took place in August 1981 and charge-sheet was sent/served in February/August, 1986 i.e. after more than four years from the date on which event took place. Meanwhile, petitioner had retired on 31.7.1984. Sanction of the Government was there. Annexure-5 to the writ petition is a communication by the then B.S.A., Bulandshahar indicating therein that on 20.2.1986 charge sheet had been received by him for being served upon the petitioner. At the bottom of the said letter petitioner’s signature dated 28.2.1986 are there acknowledging receipt of the charge-sheet. 8. Proceedings commenced from the service of charge-sheet [vide AIR 2007 SC 1706 , Coal India Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra]. Accordingly, in the instant case departmental proceedings will be deemed to have been instituted either on the date of service of charge-sheet or earliest on the date on which charge-sheet was issued. Charge-sheet was issued after more than 4 years from the date of event hence departmental proceedings were not warranted in view of the above provisions. 9. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. ————