JUDGMENT Uma Nath Singh, J.: - We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition. 2. This writ petition has been filed with prayers for: (i) Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 31.12.2012 contained in Annexure No.1 by which the petitioner has been informed that disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against him; (ii) issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the charge sheet dated 23.01.2013 as contained in Annexure No.3; (iii) issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 14.2.2013 contained in Annexure No.4 by which the petitioner was informed that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation; (iv) issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of all proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of charge sheet dated 23.1.2013 issued by Principal Secretary, Commercial Tax and Entertainment Tax, Government of U.P. which is contained in Annexure No.3; (v) issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus for the payment of pension and all post retiral benefits to the petitioner without any deductions, and (vi) grant any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. The instant writ petition impugns the orders passed by the State Government, whereby disciplinary proceedings are sought to be instituted against the petitioner, a retired government servant, who superannuated on 31.12.2012 as a Member of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, U.P. The departmental proceedings are said to have commenced on the basis of more than four years old charges which were not maintainable under Article 351 -A of the Regulations and are without jurisdiction. The proceedings are also said to be illegal because the charges, besides being well within the knowledge of the respondents for the past many years, are in regard to passing of certain assessment orders which pertained to Assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04 and that had been passed by the petitioner in the years 2005 and 2006 under U.P. Trade Tax Act in discharge of his quasi-judicial functions as Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax. The acts of government servant done in exercise of quasi-judicial powers, if done in good faith, should not be made a ground for institution of disciplinary proceedings against an officer. Further challenge to the proceedings is also on the ground that the same were sought to be instituted only on the date of his superannuation on 31.12.2012. However, no charge sheet was served upon him on that date. Thus, after his retirement no proceedings could have been drawn without there being an order under Article 351-A of the Regulations. Thereafter, in order to justify illegal issuance of the charge sheet to the petitioner, a retired government servant, without there being any order under Article 351-A; on the representation of petitioner raising the aforesaid questions, the respondents have tried to justify the illegal initiation of disciplinary proceedings by passing the impugned order dated 14.2.2013 under Article 351-A. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was an outstanding officer of the Commercial Tax Department with excellent service record. There were no adverse entries against him and from time to time he was also promoted to the higher posts. The petitioner retired on 31.12.2012 from the post of Member, Commercial Tax Tribunal, Noida. After attaining superannuation on 31.12.2012 and handing over of charge to his successor, at about 17.45 hours at his residence, on the same day he was handed over a facsimile copy of Office Memo dated 31.12.2012 issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Commercial and Entertainment Tax, Government of U.P. Since the office memo dated 31.12.2012 was not accompanied by any charge sheet, as it is evident from the office memo itself, the disciplinary proceedings could not start against the petitioner on 31.1.2012 i.e. on or before his retirement. The settled position in law according to pleadings of writ petition is that disciplinary proceedings are said to have been initiated only with the issuance of the charge sheet and since no charge sheet had been issued to the petitioner prior to the date of his superannuation, it is not legally permissible to withhold his pension and other post retiral benefits. The petitioner, therefore, preferred a representation dated 11.1.2013 to the State Government with a copy to the Principal Secretary, Department of Commercial & Entertainment Tax, Government of U.P. and to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax explaining his case and requesting for withdrawal/quashing of the Office Memo dated 31.12.2012 which held no legal sanctity. It was also requested that if any disciplinary proceedings were to be initiated against the petitioner, then it would have to be in accordance with the provisions of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations because the petitioner had already retired. It appears that after receiving the representation of petitioner dated 11.01.2013, the respondents realized that the disciplinary proceedings which were sought to have been initiated against the petitioner on 31.10.2012 were non-est. Therefore, on 7.2.2013, the petitioner was handed over a charge sheet dated 23.1.2013. 4. A perusal of the charge sheet dated 23.1.2013 would indicate that the first charge against the petitioner is related to Assessment Years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 in respect of a Multi State Apex Level Cooperative Society, namely, M/s Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'IFFCO'). An assessment order in respect of Assessment Year 2003-2004 was passed on 4.1.2005 and for Assessment Year 2003-04, on 15.2.2006 respectively. The charge against the petitioner is that in the relevant assessment years, the assessee namely M/s IFFCO was not assessed to tax on turnover of Phosphate and Potash components of chemical fertilizer- "NPK 10: 26: 26". The second charge against the petitioner is that since in respect of Assessment Year 2002-2003, the turnover of Phosphate and Potash components of chemical fertilizer- "NPK 10: 26: 26" was not taxed, therefore, the department could not proceed to tax it in the subsequent Assessment Year because the proceedings for re-assessment/revision of assessment had become time barred. The third charge against the petitioner is that in respect of Assessment Year 2003-04, the petitioner had not taxed the turnover of Phosphate and Potash components of chemical fertilizer- "NPK 10: 26: 26" of M/s IFFCO, therefore, the proceedings for re-assessment under Section 21 of the Act had to be undertaken by the department. It is relevant to mention here that by the aforesaid proceedings tax was levied on M/s IFFCO, against which an appeal U/s 10 of U.P. Trade Tax Act was filed before the Appellate Authority, and thereafter, it has been questioned before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow. It is relevant to mention here that by the aforesaid proceedings tax was levied on M/s IFFCO, against which an appeal U/s 10 of U.P. Trade Tax Act was filed before the Appellate Authority, and thereafter, it has been questioned before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow. Thus, the correctness of the order levying tax on M/s IFFCO is still pending consideration before the Commercial Tax Tribunal. 5. It is also pleaded that Sub Clause (ii) of proviso of Article 351-A of the Regulation of 1956 would conclusively indicate that a charge in respect of which disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a retired officer must be in respect of an event which took place not more than 4 years before the institution of the proceedings. In the present case charges against the petitioner are in respect of assessment orders passed on 4.1.2005 (Assessment Year 2002-03) and on 15.2.2006 (Assessment Year 2003-04). These assessment orders were passed much before 4 years' period, prior to the date of institution of proceedings against the petitioner. Thus the aforesaid proceedings are beyond the scope of Article 351A of the Regulation of 1956. The petitioner exempted the levying of Trade Tax on the sale of Phosphate and Potash component of chemical fertilizer NPD 10: 26: 26 in compliance of Government Order No. 3911 dated 13.8.2002, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Government of U.P. which stated that only Nitrogen component of different chemical fertilizers was to be taxed as Trade Tax. This Government Order was later reiterated also by an Office Circular No. 282, dated 11.2.2003 issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. and the assessing officers of the Commercial Tax were required to strictly implement the aforementioned Government Order. 6. Shri J.N. Mathur, learned senior counsel, submits that in respect of alleged misconduct namely assessment order passed by the petitioner as Deputy Commissioner in exercise of quasi-judicial powers, he has been subjected to departmental proceedings which were instituted just a day before his retirement. It is also a submission of learned senior counsel that as per Article 351-A of the Regulation of 1956, the proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted only upon service of charge sheet whereas in this case charge sheet has been served after the retirement. It is also a submission of learned senior counsel that as per Article 351-A of the Regulation of 1956, the proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted only upon service of charge sheet whereas in this case charge sheet has been served after the retirement. Learned counsel also submits that after 2002, the petitioner was given two further promotions and he has finally retired as a Member of the Trade Tax Tribunal. 7. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, in terms of proviso to Article 351 of the Regulation of 1956, as aforesaid, contended that the enquiry can be deemed to have been instituted if it is commenced during the service period of the delinquent employee. He also referred to a government Circular during arguments to show that contrary to the aforesaid Circular, the petitioner had granted exemption to IFFCO, a Government of India Enterprise (Apex Cooperative Body). It is also a submission of Shri Bhasin that irrespective of the fact that the petitioner was exercising quasi-judicial power, in case of negligence, dishonesty and misconduct, he can be subjected to departmental proceedings. 8. On due consideration of rival submissions, the questions that would arise for consideration of the Court are : (1) as to whether in terms of Proviso to Article 351 of the Regulation of 1956, service of memo/notice to start departmental proceedings just a day before retirement of the petitioner employee would be treated as initiation of departmental proceedings; (2) as to what would be the effect of two promotions given to the petitioner even after detecting errors/mistakes as alleged in the assessment orders in question which are also the subject matter of a pending proceeding; (3) as to whether the assessment orders which are said to have been passed in exercise of powers under bonafide belief that the Government Circular of 2002, as aforesaid, which provided for exemption, would apply, and (4) as to whether there is any charge of extraneous consideration. Thus these questions need to be answered in order to examine the necessity of initiating departmental inquiry at the fag end of the career of the petitioner employee. 9. Thus these questions need to be answered in order to examine the necessity of initiating departmental inquiry at the fag end of the career of the petitioner employee. 9. As per settled proposition in law, it is only when a charge memo in a disciplinary proceedings or charge sheet in criminal prosecution is issued to the employee, that the departmental proceeding/criminal prosecution is said to be initiated against the employee. In three Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & others v. K.V. Jankiraman & others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 , vide paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the judgment, this position in law has been settled by the Hon'ble Court. 10. Again in the case of UCO Bank & another v. Rajinder Lal Capoor reported in (2007) 6 SCC 694 , Hon'ble the Apex Court vide paragraph 21 of the judgment has held that the departmental proceedings, it is trite law, is not initiated merely by issuance of a show cause notice. It is initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Court recently in Coal India Limited v. Saroj Kumar Mishra reported in (2007) 9 SCC 625 , wherein it was held that the date of application of mind on the allegations levelled against an officer by the competent authority would be the date when a charge-sheet is issued as a result thereof. It would be taken as the date on which the disciplinary proceedings are said to have been initiated and not prior thereto. 11. Again in the judgment of Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited & others v. Ananta Saha and others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142 , Hon'ble the Apex Court has reiterated the position by saying in paragraph 27 of the judgment that there can be no quarrel with the settled legal position that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge sheet is issued to the delinquent employee. Reliance was placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in K,V. Jankiraman and Rajendra Lal Capoor (supra). 12. Further in three Judge Bench judgment in the case of Union of India and others v. Duli Chand reported in (2006) 5 SCC 680 , vide paragraphs 5 and 6, it has been held as under: "5. Reliance was placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in K,V. Jankiraman and Rajendra Lal Capoor (supra). 12. Further in three Judge Bench judgment in the case of Union of India and others v. Duli Chand reported in (2006) 5 SCC 680 , vide paragraphs 5 and 6, it has been held as under: "5. The law on the subject was considered in extenso in the three-Judge Bench decision of Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan wherein it was noted that the view that no disciplinary action could be initiated against an officer in respect of judicial or quasi-judicial functions was wrong. It was further said that the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acting negligently or recklessly could be proceeded against by way of disciplinary action. The Court listed six instances when such action could be taken: "28. (i) where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty; (ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty; (iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant; (iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers; (v) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however, small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago 'though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great'." 6. The Court, however, made it clear that ultimately the matter would have to depend upon the facts of a particular case. The present case would fall squarely within the fourth instance listed above." 13. Thus, unless the charge sheet was issued, it cannot be said that the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner retired on 31.12.2012 as a Member of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Noida. After the petitioner handed over the charge to his successor, he was served an office memo dated 31.12.2012 proposing to start disciplinary proceedings against him. Thus, unless the charge sheet was issued, it cannot be said that the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner retired on 31.12.2012 as a Member of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Noida. After the petitioner handed over the charge to his successor, he was served an office memo dated 31.12.2012 proposing to start disciplinary proceedings against him. Petitioner made a representation against the said office memo on 11.01.2013 to the State Government, and thereafter, the respondents handed over the charge sheet dated 23.01.2013 on 07.02.2013 in respect of some error in the assessment orders said to have been passed on 04.01.2005 in respect of assessment year 2002-03 and 15.02.2006 regarding the assessment year 2003-04 in respect of a Multi- State Apex Level Cooperative Society, namely, M/s Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited, a Government of India body, saying that the turnover of Phosphate and Potash components of chemical fertilizer - "NPK 10: 26: 26" were not taxed and the department did not proceed to tax it in the subsequent years because it had become time barred. Regarding mistake in assessment orders of the assessment year 2003-04, proceedings for re-assessment under Section 21 of the Act could be undertaken by the department. Thus, the error/mistake in the assessment orders was well within the knowledge of the department much before the petitioner retired in the year 2012. 14. Thus, we hold that, in the instant case, the departmental proceedings did not start with the service of office memo after the petitioner had handed over the charge as a Member of the Commercial Tax Tribunal on 31.12.2012. 15. 14. Thus, we hold that, in the instant case, the departmental proceedings did not start with the service of office memo after the petitioner had handed over the charge as a Member of the Commercial Tax Tribunal on 31.12.2012. 15. Article 351-A of the Regulation of 1956 dealing with initiation of departmental proceedings after the employee has retired, provides for as under: 351-A. The Governor 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 the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave mis-conduct, or to have cause, pecuniary loss to government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement; 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, and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made. (b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) (a), and (c) the Public Service Commission, U.P., shall be consulted before final orders are passed." 16. In the instant case, the departmental proceedings were not initiated on the date of retirement against the petitioner. Besides, sanction of the Governor is required under Article 351-A of the Regulation of 1956 in such cases for initiating departmental proceedings. Moreover, the proceedings are inordinately time barred also for the reason that the assessment orders in question which were passed in the year 2005 and 2006 related to the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, whereas the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in January, 2013, after his retirement. Thus, the departmental proceedings, as alleged, would not be maintainable. Moreover, the proceedings are inordinately time barred also for the reason that the assessment orders in question which were passed in the year 2005 and 2006 related to the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, whereas the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in January, 2013, after his retirement. Thus, the departmental proceedings, as alleged, would not be maintainable. Besides, the petitioner was granted two promotions even after the mistakes in assessment orders, as alleged, were detected and remained within the knowledge of the department for the past several years. The same are still a subject matter of litigation. In addition thereto, the petitioner passed the assessment orders in a bonafide belief that they were in consonance with the Government Order No.3911 dated 13.08.2002 issued by the department of Agriculture, Government of U.P., and the Office Circular No. 282 of the department of Commercial Tax dated 11.02.2003. It is also not the case of department that the petitioner passed the assessment orders for any extraneous consideration. Rather, mistake, if any, has been committed in the case of assessment of turnover of Phosphate and Potash of IFFCO, a Government of India Organization. 17. Thus, we hold that (i) Annexure-1 dated 31.12.2012, (ii) charge sheet dated 23.01.2013, and (iii) order dated 14.02.2013 are not sustainable in law. They have been passed beyond the competence of authority concerned and hence, are held to be not endurable on that count as well. As such, they are hereby quashed in terms of prayer(s) and the writ petition is allowed.