JUDGMENT 1.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: - (i) to call for the relevant record pertaining to disciplinary proceedings instituted in terms of charge-sheet, dated 5-1-2005 (P-2), for perusal of the Hon'ble Court. (ii) To issue the appropriate writs, orders, directions in the nature of certiorari, quashing thereby the order under challenge, dated 13-3-2012 (P-1) along with disciplinary proceedings instituted in terms of charge-sheet, dated 5-1-2005 (P-2), and issue any other writs, order or orders, which may be expedient in the nature and circumstances of the case. (iii) This Hon'ble Court by issuing the appropriate writs, orders, directions may be pleased to declare that the entire disciplinary proceedings have been vitiated for having been instituted and later on concluded by the authority, who is neither appointing nor concurrent authority to the Appointing Authority of the petitioner, thus, impugned penalty imposing the recovery vide order dated 13-3-2012 (P-1) is liable to be quashed alone on this ground. (iv) This Hon'ble Court by issuing the appropriate writs, orders, directions may be pleased to order the respondents to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period fixed by them. (v) Cost of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner. (vi) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court as may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also made." 2. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment order dated 13-3-2012 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bhopal is without jurisdiction for the simple reason that two days earlier to the date of retirement of the petitioner the charge-sheet was served upon him and the departmental enquiry culminated after seven years of retirement of the petitioner. Learned Counsel submits that in these facts and circumstances, the proviso to Rule 9 (2) (a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for brevity "the Rules of 1976") would come into play and the punishment order is to be passed by the Government and admittedly this has not been done. 3. On the other hand, Shri Agarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submits that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner and therefore, this petition be dismissed. 3. On the other hand, Shri Agarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submits that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner and therefore, this petition be dismissed. It has also been put forth by him that this Rule is not at all applicable in the present case because only minor penalty of recovery has been imposed upon the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 5. The petitioner was serving on the post of Ranger in the Forest Department. Admittedly, he stood retired on 31-1-2005 and two days earlier to this date, i.e., on 29-1-2005 a charge-sheet, dated 5-1-2005 was served upon him. In these facts and circumstances, according to me, the proviso to sub-rule (2) (a) of the Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 would be triggered and set in motion, which reads, thus: -- "9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. -- (1) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary 'loss caused to the Government if, in any departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement: Provided that the State Public Service Commission shall be consulte before any final orders are passed : Provided further that where a part of pension i s withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time. (2) (a) The departmental proceedings [omitted by No. 30 (26-1-96)], if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service : Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor." 6. On bare perusal of the aforesaid Rules, this Court finds that the authority subordinate to the Government would only submit its finding to the Governor who shall pass necessary order. Indeed, admittedly, this procedure has not been adopted in the present case, because the impugned order dated 13-3-2012 (Annexure P-l) has not been passed by the Governor, but it has been passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, which is ex facie without jurisdiction. On this short ground, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order, dated 13-3-2012 (Annexure P-l) is set aside and it is hereby directed that the decision of the final order in disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner shall be taken by the Governor in terms of Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Rules of 1976. If the Disciplinary Authority comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is responsible for committing some misconduct, in that situation necessary order in accordance with law may be passed by paying heed to Rule 9 (5) of the Rules of 1976. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any view that the petitioner has committed any misconduct. The Governor shall be free to pass such order if it is found that the misconduct is not proved against the petitioner. 7. This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.