Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing of order dated 31.10.2005 (Annexure P-11) and for setting-aside order dated 3.5.2007 (Annexure P-13) passed on an appeal filed against this order and some other orders on the ground that these are illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner had joined the services of the Corporation on 30.9.2002. While being posted as Manager, State Warehouse, Ratia, in the year 1997, some technical inspection was conducted by Assistant Manager (Quality Control), Hisar, who reported high moisture contents varying from 17.9% to 22%. The District Manager, Hisar, brought to the notice of the petitioner that stock was not having complete entries of high moisture content in paddy. Subsequently, the petitioner had replied that high moisture in paddy had been received from FCI during rains and the stocks had been stacked. The petitioner claims that stack was not moved by him and same continued to remain in position after these were stacked. 3. With effect from 23.12.1998, the delivery of paddy to FCI started and the moisture contents were reported between 11%to 12.40%. Some abnormal shortages in paddy stocks was reported by Sh.Mohinder Kumar, Junior Technical Assistant. The whole stock of paddy was delivered between 22.12.1998 to 2.2.1999. The matter was investigated by the Corporation. As per the petitioner, the stock was found to be well preserved scientifically in the Warehouse and the losses occurred due to natural cause beyond any human control. The petitioner accordingly contends that it was recommended that the losses be regularised. 4. The petitioner retired with effect from 30.9.2002. He was charge sheeted on 31.12.2002 videAnnexure P-9, containing an allegation that why some recovery and minor punishment be not imposed on him for the shortages that were noticed. The petitioner submitted his reply on 4.2.2003, denying the charges. The respondent- Corporation consequently passed an order dated 31.10.2005, directing that the alleged loss be equally borne by the concerned officials. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order, which was rejected on 3.5.2007.The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal for reconsideration before the Board of Directors. The petitioner submitted his reply on 4.2.2003, denying the charges. The respondent- Corporation consequently passed an order dated 31.10.2005, directing that the alleged loss be equally borne by the concerned officials. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order, which was rejected on 3.5.2007.The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal for reconsideration before the Board of Directors. As revealed from the record, the Board of Directors had set-aside the orders passed by the Managing Director and the Executive Committee and remanded the case to the Managing Director for re-examination and to pass a fresh order after getting an enquiry conducted and affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner would further refer to the decision of the Board of Directors to say that higher storage losses could not be attributed entirely to his responsibility and that the penalty imposed is not commensurate with the gravity and the lapses. The petitioner has still been held liable for the loss on 26.11.2008 to the tune of Rs. 39.298-80P and a sum of Rs. 6230/- being excess market fee. This order was again appealed, which was rejected on 1.9.2009. The petitioner, therefore, has filed this writ petition before this Court. 5. The main grievance raised by the petitioner is on the basis of provisions of Rule 2.2 (b) of Haryana Civil Services, Volume II (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), which has been made applicable to its employees by the respondent- Warehousing Corporation. Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules makes a clear provision that departmental proceedings if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before retirement or during his re-employment can only be with the sanction of the Government and that it shall not be in respect of an event, which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. On this basis, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the loss, if any, which was prior to four years of the institution of these proceedings can not be enquired into and the petitioner made answerable or responsible for the same. 6. The respondents have filed reply and would dispute this fact. However, it is not disputed that provisions of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Rules would be applicable. 6. The respondents have filed reply and would dispute this fact. However, it is not disputed that provisions of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Rules would be applicable. As per learned counsel for the respondents, the cause of action, at the most, started From 22.12.1998 and even as per the best case projected by the petitioner, the loss during the period of 8 days from 22.12.1998 to 30.12.1998 may be hit by Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules. As per the respondents, it would be well within their power to proceed against the other losses. 7. To be fair to counsel for the respondents, he did make reference to Annexure R-1 to show that the losses had been signed and forwarded to the head office on 8.3.1999 to urge that the entire losses, thus, came to the notice of the Corporation during March 1999 and hence, these would be within the limitation period for being investigated or proceeded against the petitioner. 8. A perusal of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Rules, rather would not support the stand taken by the respondents. Rule 2.2 (b) talks of institution of the proceedings and as per this Rule, institution of departmental proceedings starts with issuance of charge sheet. In the present case, the charge sheet was issued on 31.12.2002.The incident alleged in the article of charges clearly shows that there were certain losses, which were from 22.12.1998 to 30/31.12.1998. Accordingly, these losses apparently would be beyond the period of four years and to that an extent Rule 2.2 (b) of the Rules would get attracted. It is well settled by now that any departmental proceedings in regard to an incident which is more than four years old from the date of retirement, can not be gone into. This aspect perhaps has escaped notice of the respondent- Corporation. It is made clear that any loss, which is not within the period of four years from institution of the proceedings, can always be proceeded against, for which the Corporation would have jurisdiction. 9. The impugned orders passed, therefore, require to be re-examined in the light of above legal position. The case is accordingly remitted back to the Managing Director to re-consider the same in the light of legal position and for passing a fresh order in case he finds that any of the losses were beyond the competence of the Corporation to institute the proceedings. The case is accordingly remitted back to the Managing Director to re-consider the same in the light of legal position and for passing a fresh order in case he finds that any of the losses were beyond the competence of the Corporation to institute the proceedings. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of