JUDGMENT : By the Court.—We have heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Pradeep Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 2. The petitioner, who happens to be retired Chief Engineer, Kanpur Development Authority, has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order of Joint Secretary (Personnel), Kanpur Development Authority dated 3.3.2011, order of Enquiry Officer dated 22.2.2011 and the order of State Government dated 29.9.2010 (Annexures 3, 4 and 5 to the writ petition). 3. vide order dated 29.9.2010, Joint Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department has required the Vice Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority to prepare a charge-sheet for the misdeeds of the petitioner, due to which financial loss has occurred to the Development Authority, in order to recover the loss in view of provisions contained under Regulation 351A of Civil Services Regulation. vide order dated 22.2.2011, the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur has sent a copy of charge-sheet to the Vice Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority for affecting the service of charge-sheet upon the petitioner with the request that after service of charge-sheet upon the petitioner, it be made available to his office alongwith his signature on second copy whereas vide order dated 3.3.2011, Joint Secretary (Personnel), Kanpur Development Authority has sent a copy of the charge-sheet to the petitioner. 4. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner while serving as Chief Engineer in Kanpur Development Authority, retired on 30.6.2010. After his retirement, the charge-sheet in question has been served upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid charge-sheet and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. While assailing the aforesaid orders and the enquiry proceeding itself Sri Bhushan, who appears for the petitioner, has submitted that the proceeding under 351A of Regulations can be initiated only against an employee who is holding a pensionable post and if the employee concerned is not holding a pensionable post, in that eventuality, the provisions contained in Regulation 351A cannot be invoked. In his submissions, on the date, when the petitioner retired, the post of Chief Engineer, Development Authority was not pensionable, therefore, no enquiry could be initiated against him. Further more, no sanction for initiating enquiry could be accorded by the Hon’ble Governor. In his submissions, on the date, when the petitioner retired, the post of Chief Engineer, Development Authority was not pensionable, therefore, no enquiry could be initiated against him. Further more, no sanction for initiating enquiry could be accorded by the Hon’ble Governor. In his further submissions, in the present case, although later on a Rule known as Uttar Pradesh Vikas Pradhikaran Kendrit Sewa Nivriti Labh Niymawali has came into force w.e.f. 11.11.2011 (herein after referred as the ‘Rule’). This Rule was made while exercising the power vested in Section 5A(1) read with Section 55 of the Act, which was made effective with immediate effect i.e. w.e.f. 11.11.2011. The submission is that the charge-sheet was framed and served upon the petitioner through letter dated 3.11.2011, before the commencement of Rule of 2011. Therefore, in view of law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and another v. Public Services Tribunal and others, 2008(2) ADJ 11 (DB), Allahabad, no disciplinary proceeding could be initiated against a retired employee. 6. Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel appearing for Kanpur Development Authority have submitted that Rule 2011 has retrospective effect and it will cover all retired employee of the Development Authority therefore the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law as for all practical purposes, the post would be pensionable even since the date when the petitioner has retired. They have also submitted that the order dated 29.9.2010 is not a sanction order and without there being an order of sanction, the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. For appreciating the controversy, we find it appropriate to reproduce Regulation 351A of Civil Services Regulation and paragraph 13 of the writ petition. They have also submitted that the order dated 29.9.2010 is not a sanction order and without there being an order of sanction, the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. For appreciating the controversy, we find it appropriate to reproduce Regulation 351A of Civil Services Regulation and paragraph 13 of the writ petition. Regulation : “351-A The Governor reserves to himself the right of witholding 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 caused 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) of clause (a), and (c) the Public Service Commission, U.P., shall be consulted before final orders are passed. (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) of clause (a), and (c) the Public Service Commission, U.P., shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation—For the purposes of this article— (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him, or, if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted : (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made, or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal Court; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an application is made, to a Civil Court.” Para 13 of the writ petition “That, since the services of the petitioner was non-pensionable and no pension was payable to him under the relevant service rules, the question of withholding or stopping of pension did not arise at all and the order initiating disciplinary proceedings in exercise of power under Rule 351-A suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction and also from complete non-application of mind.” The reply of the paragraph 13 of the writ petition has been given in paras 3 and 7 of the counter-affidavit, which are reproduced herein below: ^^3- ;g fd 'kiFkdrkZ ;kfpdk dk izLrkoj tokc nsus ds igys ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds laKku esa dqN vko';d rF;ksa dks ykuk pkgrk gS tks fuEufyf[kr gS%& ;g fd Jh ,lŒihŒ,lŒ jk?ko] eq[; vfHk;Urk lsŒfuŒ dkuiqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk vius in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, viuh rSukrh dh vof/k esa izkf/kdj.k dks vkfFkZd {kfr igqWapkus ds dkj.k 'kklu ds vkns'k fnukad 29-9-2010 dh Nk;k izfr layXud lhŒ,Œ&1 ds :i esa layXu dh tk jgh gSSA }kjk lhŒ,lŒvkjŒ ds vuqPNsn] 351&, ds vUrxZr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh lafLFkr djrs gq, mlds lapkyu gsrq vk;qDr] dkuiqj e.My dks tkWp vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSA Jh jk?ko dk dFku gS fd izkf/kdj.k lsok esa isa'ku dh O;oLFkk ykxw ugha gSA bl dkj.k muds lsokfuo`Rr gksus ds i'pkr lhŒ,lŒvkjŒ ds vuqPNsn 351&, ds vUrxZr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh lafLFkr ugha dh tk ldrh gSA bl laca/k esa mYys[k djuk gS fd izkf/kdj.k lsok ds dkfeZdksa ds fy;s isa'ku dh O;oLFkk 'kklu ds vkns'k fnukad 11-11-2011 }kjk ykxw dj nh x;h ftldh Nk;k izfr layXud lhŒ,Œ&2 ds :i esa layXu dh tk jgh gSA mDr vkns'k fuxZr gksus ds iwoZ lsok fuo`Rr gksus okys dkfeZdksa dks Hkh isa'ku O;oLFkk dks ykHk vuqeU; djkus gsrq fnukad 22-12-2011 dks vkns'k fuxZr fd;k tk pqdk gSA bl izdkj izkf/kdj.k dkfeZdksa ds fy;s isa'ku O;oLFkk ykxw dh tk pqdh gSA bl dkj.k Jh jk?ko }kjk dh x;h vfu;ferrkvksa ,oa izkf/kdj.k dks vkfFkZd {kfr igqWpkus laca/kh vkjksiksa ds fy;s lhŒ,lŒvkjŒ ds vuqPNsn 351&, ds vUrxZr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh lapkfyr dh tk ldrh gSA vr,o vuqPNsn 351&, ds vUrxZr lafLFkr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh fof/k lEer gSA 7- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj la[;k&10 yxk;r 13 rd esa of.kZr dFku vLohdkj gSA izkf/kdj.k esa isa'ku O;oLFkk vkns'k fnukad 11-11-2011 ,oa fnukad 22-12-2011 }kjk ykxw dj nh x;h gSA ftldh Nk;k izfr layXud lhŒ,Œ&3 ds :i esa layXu dh tk jgh gSA bl dkj.k ;kph ds fo:) vkns'k 29-09-2010 }kjk lhŒ,lŒvkjŒ ds vuqPNsn 351&, ds vUrxZr lafLFkr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh fof/k lEer gSA** 8. From a bare perusal of Regulation 351A, it transpires that the Governor reserves the right of witholding or withdrawing 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 caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or Negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. 9. Here in this case, it is not clear that as to when Hon’ble Governor has accorded sanction for initiating the disciplinary proceeding but it is apparent that the date, on which sanction was accorded, is prior to commencement of Rules of 2011 for the reasons that the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner through letter dated 3.3.2011 whereas Rule 2011 came into force in November 2011 i.e. on 11.11.2011. Therefore, it is clear that whenever sanction was accorded by Hon’ble Governor, the post of Chief Engineer was not pensionable. 10. Here the question would be as to whether the Rules of 2011 can be applied with retrospective effect for grant of sanction for initiating the disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee. 11. We have gone through the Rules of 2011 covering the field, in our view, the competence of an authority for exercising the power vested in him is to be seen on the date when the power has been exercised and not on a subsequent date. Here, in this case, on factual matrix, it is not in dispute that the sanction was accorded, for initiating the disciplinary proceeding by Hon’ble the Governor, prior to the commencement of the Rules of 2011 and at that time, the post, which was held by the petitioner, was not pensionable whereas under Regulation 351-A, the Hon’ble Governor can withhold or withdraw 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 caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or Negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. 12. 12. Learned counsel for the otherside submitted that since the Rules of 2011 has been made applicable with retrospective effect, therefore there was no illegality in granting sanction, in our considered view, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents is superfluous and does not carry any weight as relevant date for exercising the power will be the date on which it was exercised as discussed, herein, above and the same cannot be validated taking advantage of subsequent enactment. In our view, since on the date when Hon’ble Governor has accorded the sanction for initiating disciplinary proceeding was not having power as the post in question was not pensionable, therefore he could not accord the sanction. 13. The view taken by us, find support from paragraphs 28 and 30 of the judgement rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (supra), in which one of us (Justice Ran Vijai Singh) was a member. For ready reference, para 28 and 30 of the judgement are being quoted herein below; “28. The counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that: The contesting respondent reached the age of superannuation during pendency of the case before the Tribunal on 31.1.1994; The disciplinary proceeding after date of superannuation can continue only if article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations is applicable; Article 351-A is applicable only to pensionable posts; The post of the petitioner is not pensionable and as such article 351-A is not applicable; There is no other provision under which disciplinary proceeding can continue after superannuation. The entire disciplinary proceeding has become infructuous after superannuation and are to be dropped. 30. In case any post is not pensionable then Article 351-A is not be applicable as there is no question of any recovery from the pension of that person. The post of the petitioner is not pensionable and as such it is not applicable.” 14. It is well-settled law that any order without jurisdiction is a nullity and no legal consequence can flow from such order. The post of the petitioner is not pensionable and as such it is not applicable.” 14. It is well-settled law that any order without jurisdiction is a nullity and no legal consequence can flow from such order. Reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization v. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619 , Sarup Singh and another v. Union of India and another, (2011) 11 SCC 198 , Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Shri Jawahar Inter College and another v. State of U.P. and others in Special Appeal No. 164 of 2012 decided on 25.1.2012, Rajesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and others, 2017(7) ADJ 601 and Mithai Lal v. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No. 24586 of 2014, decided on 12.10.2017). 15. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 3.3.2011, 22.2.2011 and 29.9.2010 are hereby quashed. 16. Before parting, we would like to observe that in case there is any loss because of misdeeds of the petitioner, the State Government is free to recover the same provided existing law so permits.