ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India prays for the following reliefs: ¼7-1½ fiVh'kuj }kjk izLrqr orZeku fjV fiVh'ku Lohdkj djrs gq,] fookfnr vkns'k fnukad 2-1-2018] 20-11-2017 ,oa 9-6-2017 vusXtj ih-1 lhjht mlls vU; izfrdwy vkns'k tks fookfnr vkns'kksa ls mRiUu gq, gkas] dks fujLr@vikLr djrs gq, foHkkxh; izkfËkdkfj;ksa@fjLiksUMsUV~l dks vknsf'kr@funsZf'kr djus dh d`ik djsa fd fiVh'kuj lsokfuo`fÙk ds mijkar feyus Lohd`r ,oa vuqeksfnr ekfld isU'ku eas ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dh olwyh ugha djsa ,oa isU'ku esa ls olwy dh xbZ jkf'k dks fuèkkZfjr C;kt lfgr fiVh'kuj dks okfil iznku djsaA ¼7-2½ fiVh'kuj ds lsokfgr ykHkksa isU'ku esa ls ;fn dksbZ olwyh fd, tkus ds vkns'k@funsZ'k lssokiqfLrdk esa vk{ksi ¼vkifRr½ tks fd fiVh'kuj ds fo#) gksa fujLr@vikLr fd, tkus dh —ik djsaA ¼7-3½ vU; mfpr fjV] vknasa'k vFkok funsZ'k U;k; fgr esa fiVh'kuj ds i{k esa tkjh djus dh Ñik djsa] izdj.k O;; fjLiksUMsUV~l ls fnyk, tkus dh d`ik djsaAß 2. Bare facts giving rise to the present case are that challenge was made to recovery of amount of Rs. 4,52,440/- from pensionary benefits of petitioner who on attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2011 from the post of Librarian at Government Govind College, Sevda, District Datia. 3. The ground taken by the petitioner in support of the challenge to the recovery is that the impugned recovery is being made without any authority of law as neither rule 9 nor rule 66 of M.P. Civil Service (Pension Rules), 1976 empowers any of the respondents to make recovery after retirement which is sought to be made. 4. The reply filed by the State reveals that on an objection taken by University Grant Commission that certain amount released by the Commission in favour of the Collage under certain heads was not utilized for the purpose for which it was meant, but was diverted and used to some other purposes on the behest of the petitioner who happened to be the Librarian of the College. The said amount related to the financial year 2009-2010. 5. Petitioner was allowed to retire on 31.10.2011 and started receiving regular pension and also the related, peansionary benefits. As late as in the year 2017, memo dated 18.1.2017 (Annexure R/2) was issued addressing inter alia to the petitioner asking the petitioner to explain as to why the recovery of an amount Rs. 8,60,852/- be not made from him. 5. Petitioner was allowed to retire on 31.10.2011 and started receiving regular pension and also the related, peansionary benefits. As late as in the year 2017, memo dated 18.1.2017 (Annexure R/2) was issued addressing inter alia to the petitioner asking the petitioner to explain as to why the recovery of an amount Rs. 8,60,852/- be not made from him. Reply to the said communication was filed by petitioner as alleged but the same is not on record. Thereafter, recovery order (Annexure P/1) was passed by respondents State Bank of India being the disbursing authority which was based on direction of the sanctioning authority i.e. Treasury Officer, Sevda, District Datia dated 17.11.2017. The State Bank of India was directed to make recovery from the pension of the petitioner @ Rs. 21,800/- per month to ensure recovery of total amount of Rs. 4,52,440/-. 6. The return filed by the State justifies the recovery by attributing the same to objection taken by the UGC about the unlawful diversion of the fund from one head to the other without prior permission. The return further discloses that instead of taking disciplinary action, the course of making recovery was adopted by reserving the right to take further appropriate action. 7. The return of the State is silent about any enabling legal provision which empowers the State to make the impugned recovery after 6-7 years of retirement. 8. The only provision which can be invoked by the respondents/State is provided in rule 9 which empowers the Governor to initiate disciplinary proceeding for grave misconduct for making recovery after retirement, provided the disciplinary proceedings are initiated before expiry of 4 years from the date of retirement in respect of a misconduct which occurred prior to retirement. 9. Relevant rule 9 of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 is reproduced below for convenience and ready reference: "9. 9. Relevant rule 9 of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 is reproduced below for convenience and ready reference: "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 consulted before any final orders are passed: Provided further that where a part of pension is 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, if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirementof 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. (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment: (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings-- (a) in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service in case it is proposed to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period; or (b) in which an order of recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service if it is proposed to order recovery from his pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. (3) No judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (3) No judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity as provided in rule 64, as the case may be, shall be sanctioned: [Provided that where pension has already been finally sanctioned to a Government servant prior to institution of departmental proceedings, the Governor may, by order in writing, withhold, with effect from the date of institution of such departmental proceedings fifty per cent of the pension so sanctioned subject however that the pension payable after such withholding is not reduced to less than the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time: Provided further that where departmental proceedings have been instituted prior to the 25th October, 1978, the first proviso shall have effect as if for the words "with effect from the date of institution of such proceedings" the words "with effect from a date not later than thirty days from the date aforementioned," had been substituted : Provided also that-- (a) If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of one year from the date of institution thereof, fifty per cent of the pension withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of one year; (b) If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of two years from the date of institution the entire amount of pension so withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of two years; and (c) If in the departmental proceedings final order is passed to withhold or withdraw the pension or any recovery is ordered, the order shall be deemed to take effect from the date of the institution of departmental proceedings and the amount of pension since withheld shall be adjusted in terms of the final order subject to the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of rule 43. (5) Where the Government decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. (6) For the purpose of this rule-- (a) Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted-- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court.,, 10. Rule 65 of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 is also reproduced below for convenience and ready reference: " 65. Recovery and adjustment of Government dues. (1) It shall be the duty of every retiring Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement. (2) Where a retiring Government servant does not clear the Government dues and such dues are ascertainable -- (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him; or (b) out of the gratuity payable to him, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Government dues shall be deducted. Explanation -- The expression ‘ascertainable Government dues’ includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income-tax deductible at source under the Income-tax Act, 1961." 11. The aforesaid provision under rule 65 of Pension Rules, relates to amount due from the Government servant which are ascertained for which cash deposit can be taken and recovery can be made from gratuity due at the time of retirement. 12. This Court while dealing with the provision of rule 65 of Pension Rules emphasized the limited period and power available to make recovery from retired employees. 13. 12. This Court while dealing with the provision of rule 65 of Pension Rules emphasized the limited period and power available to make recovery from retired employees. 13. In view of above it is amply clear that more than four years have elapsed since the alleged misconduct which took place in 2010-2011 and therefore, the State and its functionaries are estopped from taking recourse to rule 9 of the Pension Rules. The decision rendered in the case of Kudusi Maval v. State of M. P., reported in 2014 (3) JLJ 410 , rules 65 and 66 of Pension Rules is applicable to the case in hand. 14. From reading of return of the State it is obvious that in view of the legal bar, the State instead of making recovery from the officers responsible for allowing the alleged illegal diversion of fund by the petitioner, have tried to pass the buck on to a soft target, i.e., petitioner and therefore, the impugned recovery is not supported by any authority of law. 15. In view of above, the impugned recovery is unsustainable in law. 16. The petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed with the following directions: 1. Impugned recovery order Annexure P/1 issued by the State Bank of India stands quashed. 2. In case any recovery has been made from the petitioner by State Bank of India, same shall be refunded to the pension account of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 3. Since the recovery is made without authority of law, respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are jointly saddled with cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner for compelling him to file the present avoidable piece of litigation in the evening of his life. 4. The amount of recovered amount, if any, from the petitioner shall be repaid to him by the State Bank of India along with interest @ 9% per annum calculated from the date of deduction till refund. Petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.