Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the chargesheet dated 20.3.2008 (Annexure P-l collectively) issued by the respondent-Corporation alleging that he while working as District Manager, State Warehouse, Phagwara, had delivered 140587 bags weighing 133297.00.600 quintals of rice at State Warehouse, Phagwara during the months of 8/95 to 10/97 and shown shortage of 383.85 quintals over and above the permissible limit, thereby causing financial loss of Rs.233869.78 to the respondents, in connivance with Sham Lal, GA; further that the petitioner had delivered 35615 bags weighing 33206.33.800 quintals of rice at State Warehouse, Phagwara during the months of 5/96 and 10/95 and shown shortage to the tune of 387.22 quintals over and above the permissible limit causing financial loss of Rs,241904.41, in connivance with Ashok Kumar, GA. 2. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") on 14.8.1974 as Technical Assistant at State Warehouse, Baghapurana and retired as Additional Manager on 30.11.2006 from State Warehouse, Hoshiarpur on attaining the age of superannuation. Respondent No.2 issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner vide communication dated 20.3.2008 alleging the following misconduct:- "That you along with Shri Sham Lal, GA, had delivered 140587 bags weighing 133297.00.600 Qtls of rice at State Warehouse, Phagwara during the month of 8/95-10/97 and shown over and above shortage to the tune of 383.85 Qtls. than the permission limit causing financial loss of Rs.233869.78 to the Corporation including 5% incidental charges, for which you are responsible. That you along with Shri Ashok Kumar, GA, had delivered 35615 bags weighing 33206.33.800 Qtls of rice at State Warehouse, Phagwara during the month of 05/96 and 10/95 and shown over and above shortage to the tune of 387.22 Qtis than the permissible limit causing financial loss of Rs.241904.41 to the Corporation including 5% incidental charges, for which you are responsible." 3. On 29.5.2008, the petitioner sent a reply to the chargesheet denying the charges levelled against him. Respondent No.2 appointed Shri B.R. Bansal as Enquiry Officer to look into the charges levelled against the petitioner. On 29.5.2008, the petitioner sent a reply to the chargesheet denying the charges levelled against him. Respondent No.2 appointed Shri B.R. Bansal as Enquiry Officer to look into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner sent a letter dated 27.11.2008 to the Enquiry Officer requesting him to stop further disciplinary proceedings in the light of the judgment dated 10.9.2008 passed by this Court in CWP No. 10456 of 2007 titled as "Raghbir Singh v. PSWC whereby the identical charge-sheet issued by the Corporation after expiry of limitation period of 4 years prescribed in the Rules in case of a retired employee was quashed. It was pleaded in the said letter that the petitioner had retired from the service of the Corporation on 30.11.2006 and it was only after his retirement that the charge sheet was issued to him on 20.3.2008 on account of release of stocks relating to period from August, 1995 to October, 1997, i.e. after the expiry of a period of 11 to 13 years. As the petitioner had not received any reply, he submitted his defence statement to the Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 15.1.2009 (Annexure P-4). In the said defence statement, the petitioner took a plea that no disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against a retired employee in relation to the events which transpired four years before the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as contained in proviso (2) of Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume If, Part I (in short, the Rules). Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Upon notice of motion, the respondents filed a joint written statesment by way of- affidavit pleading that the writ petition was premature at this stage and the charge-sheet could not be quashed without permitting the Enquiry Officer to look into the matter in detail on the basis of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, ft was further pleaded that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief from this Court as he was facing serious charges of misappropriation of paddy worth Rs.23,00,000/-. It was also pleaded that the plea of the petitioner mat he was entitled to the benefit of Rule 2.2 (b)(2)(ii) of the Rules, was a matter of fact which had to-be examined by the Enquiry Officer. The other averments were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the writ was made. 5. It was also pleaded that the plea of the petitioner mat he was entitled to the benefit of Rule 2.2 (b)(2)(ii) of the Rules, was a matter of fact which had to-be examined by the Enquiry Officer. The other averments were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the writ was made. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged charge of shortage of rice related to the years from 1995 to 1997 and the petitioner having retired on 30.11.2006, the issuance of chargesheet was in violation of the proviso (2) to Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules. According to the learned counsel, charge-sheet could only be issued in respect of the event which had happened within 4 years prior to the initiation of an enquiry and, therefore, the same having been issued after a period of more than 10 Years was invalid. He placed reliance upon a Judgment of this Court m Raghbir Singh v. panjab State Warehousing Corporation and another. CWP No.10456 of 2007 decided on 11.9.2008. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a serious charge of shortage of rice was imputed against the petitioner and at this stage the enquiry was in progress and, therefore, the writ petition was premature. He also submits that the charge-sheet was issued in accordance with the Rules. 8. The relevant part of Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules reads thus:- "2.2 (a) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (b) The government further reserve to themselves 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 mis-conduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement. Provided that (1) Such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer be deemed to be a proceeding under this article and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service. (2) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and shall be conducted by such authority and at such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service." 9. The aforesaid Rule in unambiguous terms spells out that there is absolute prohibition for holding an enquiry against a retired employee in respect of any event which had occurred more than four years earlier to initiation of the enquiry. In the present case, the alleged shortage relates to the years from 1995 to 1997 and the petitioner had retired on 30.11.2006. Admittedly, the initiation of enquiry by issuing charge-sheet on 20.3.2008 is beyond the period of 4 years as contemplated under the proviso (2) to Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules. The present charge-sheet, thus, could not be validly issued. Learned counsel for the respondents could not justify the initiation of enquiry in respect of shortage relating to the years from 1995 to 1997 except reiterating the stand as noticed earlier. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, thus, cannot be accepted. Similar matter with regard to an employee of the respondent-Corporation in respect of shortage of wheat relating to the year 1998-99 where the employee had retired on 30.11.2006 and the action was sought to be initiated by charge-sheet on 16.5.2007, this Court in Raghubir Singhs case (supra) (Annexure P-9) had allowed the writ petition and quashed the chargesheet dated 16.5.2007. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the charge-sheet dated 20.3.2008 (Annexure P-l collectively) is hereby quashed.