JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.1.2017 issued by the Director, Museum, Directorate, U.P. whereby the petitioner has been given the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 which is contained as Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition, therefore, the present petition impeaches the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017. 3. It is to be noted here that by means of Writ-Service Single No. 20361 of 2016: Dr. Ajay Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. & others the petitioner has impeached the suspension order dated 4.8.2016 and the said writ petition was connected with this writ petition vide order dated 9.3.2017 passed by this Court. The aforesaid writ petition i.e. Service Single No. 20361 of 2016 has been allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.7.2019 quashing the suspension order dated 4.8.2016. 4. Since the suspension order issued against the petitioner dated 4.8.2016 was treated to be non-est in the eyes of law by this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.7.2019, therefore, it shall be deemed that the suspension order against the petitioner was not issued and in that case the impugned charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 would be tested in the light of the provisions of Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations to examine as to whether the prior approval from the Hon'ble Governor under Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations was sought or not before initiating the departmental proceedings against the petitioner by issuing charge-sheet after his retirement. 5. Since the brief facts and circumstances of the issue in question has already been considered in Writ Service Single No. 20361 of 2016 and this writ petition is an extension of earlier writ petition challenging the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 which has been issued pursuant to the suspension order dated 4.8.2016, therefore, for the convenience the judgment and order dated 24.7.2019 is being reproduced herein below : "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The order impeached is suspension order dated 4.8.2016 passed by the Secretary, Department of Culture, State of U.P., Lucknow whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the allegations, which have already resulted in issuance of notice to him for imposition of minor penalty under Rule 10 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Discipline Rules, 1999). Though the petitioner has already been superannuated on 31.12.2016 yet I am hereby testing the validity of the suspension order as to whether it has been issued within four corner of the law relevant for suspension of an employee. The sole legal question involved in this writ petition is as to whether an employee may be placed under suspension if the proceedings against him/ her have been initiated for awarding minor penalty. Since the aforesaid question is to be adjudicated, therefore, detail facts of the case may be ignored and only some relevant facts are being considered. It is also to be noted here that the present writ petition has been connected with Writ Petition No.5402 (S/B) of 2017; Dr. Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and another, vide order dated 9.3.2017 passed by this Court wherein the charge sheet dated 19.1.2017, which has been issued pursuant to the impugned suspension order dated 4.8.2016, has been assailed, therefore, this writ petition of 2016 is being decided. At the time of issuance of suspension order dated 4.8.2016, the petitioner was serving on the post of Deputy Director, State Museum, Jhansi. However, the petitioner was given additional charge of Director, State Museum, Lucknow and at the relevant time, he was also holding the charge of Director, Museum Directorate, Lucknow. The Secretary of the Department i.e. Department of Culture issued an office order dated 1.5.2013 (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition) issuing show cause notice against the petitioner under Rule 10 (2) of the Discipline Rules, 1999 seeking explanation in respect of two allegations. The aforesaid office order itself reveals that there were total six complaints against the petitioner, out of which explanation is required from the petitioner on two points only. Just after receiving the aforesaid office order dated 1.5.2013, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.5.2013 (Annexure No.14 to the writ petition) to the Secretary explaining his bona fide apprising the competent authority that both the aforesaid allegations are false on the face of it, therefore, the petitioner may be exonerated from both the charges. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, no decision has been taken till 24.4.2015 inasmuch as on 24.4.2015 the petitioner received second notice on the same charges, which have already been explained by the petitioner vide his reply dated 15.5.2013. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, no decision has been taken till 24.4.2015 inasmuch as on 24.4.2015 the petitioner received second notice on the same charges, which have already been explained by the petitioner vide his reply dated 15.5.2013. However, the petitioner again sent reply to the said notice on 25.5.2015 but no decision was taken till 4.8.2016 inasmuch as on 4.8.2016 the impugned suspension order was issued. It is to be noted here that the suspension order has been passed about five months before the retirement of the petitioner as the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2016. It has also been noted that till retirement of the petitioner, no charge sheet has been issued to him within the aforesaid period of five months i.e. w.e.f. 4.8.2016, the date of suspension order till 31.12.2016, the date of retirement of the petitioner. This Court granted interim order on 1.9.2016 staying the operation of suspension order. Despite the interim order dated 1.9.2016 being passed, the order dated 23.9.2016 was passed by opposite party no.1 stopping the salary of the petitioner and this Court vide order dated 6.10.2016 was pleased to stay the order dated 23.9.2016. Therefore, this Court has stayed the suspension order dated 4.8.2016 and the order dated 23.9.2016 whereby salary of the petitioner was stopped. The precise submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no dispute that enquiry against the petitioner was proceeded under Rule 10 (2) of the Discipline Rules, 1999 and the show cause notice was also given to the petitioner under the said Rule i.e. Rule 10 (2), therefore, in view of the settled law, the petitioner should not be placed under suspension in these circumstances. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that counter affidavit has already been filed in the writ petition and para-15 of the counter affidavit corroborates the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as in para-15 of the counter affidavit, it has categorically been indicated as under:- "15. That the contents of paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the Writ Petition are wrong, incorrect and misleading hence denied. That the contents of paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the Writ Petition are wrong, incorrect and misleading hence denied. It is submitted that the complaints received against the petitioner were duly examined and in the complaints charges leveled the Petitioner were of very serious in nature and the same were found prima-facie established against the Petitioner, therefore the Show Cause Notice under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was issued against the Petitioner." Therefore, this is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was proceeded departmentally under Rule 10 (2) of the Discipline Rules, 1999. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and relevant Rules, I am of the considered view that in view of the settled proposition of law that the suspension shall not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty. Not only the Hon'ble Apex Court has held exactly the same but also Rule 4 (1) of the Discipline Rules, 1999, which describes the suspension as under:- "4. Suspension- (1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority: Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty: Provided further that concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government Servant or class of Government Servant belonging to Group 'A' and 'B' posts under suspension under this rule: Provided also that in the case Government Servant or class of Government Servant belonging to Group 'C' and 'D' posts, the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority." It would be apt to consider Rule 10 (2) of the Discipline Rules, 1999 so as to appreciate the controversy properly. Rule 10 (2) provides procedure for imposing minor penalties. For convenience, Rule 10 of the Discipline Rules, 1999 is reproduced hereunder:- "10. Rule 10 (2) provides procedure for imposing minor penalties. For convenience, Rule 10 of the Discipline Rules, 1999 is reproduced hereunder:- "10. Procedure for imposing minor penalties- (1) Where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a course, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) impose one or more of the minor penalties mentioned in Rule 3. (2) The Government Servant shall be informed of the substance of the imputations against him and called upon to submit his explanation within a reasonable time. The Disciplinary Authority shall, after considering the said explanation, if any, and the relevant records, pass such order as he considers proper and where a penalty is imposed, reason thereof shall be given. (3) The order shall be communicated to the concerned Government Servant." It has also been noticed that for allegations, which relate from April, 2012 to June, 2012, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the year 2013 and after the reply being submitted by the petitioner in the year 2013 itself, no final decision has been taken. Thereafter, in the year 2015 again a notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his reply but no final decision has been taken. It appears that the authority concerned was adamant to punish the petitioner for the reason best known to him, therefore, instead of taking final decision in the matter of the petitioner, he placed the petitioner under suspension on 4.8.2016, before about five months from his retirement and no proper endeavour has been taken to serve charge sheet to the petitioner till his retirement i.e. 31.12.2016; there are Government Orders to the effect that if any employee is placed under suspension, he should be given charge sheet with promptness. In Government Order dated 31.3.2017 issued for the Public Works Department, the time to serve charge sheet is fifteen days. This has been consistent view of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court that if any employee is placed under suspension, he should have been provided charge sheet with promptness and thereafter the departmental enquiry may be conducted and concluded with expedition. This has been consistent view of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court that if any employee is placed under suspension, he should have been provided charge sheet with promptness and thereafter the departmental enquiry may be conducted and concluded with expedition. Some Government Orders of the State Government provide that the incumbent should be served upon the charge sheet within a period of fifteen days, thereafter he should submit his defence reply to the charge sheet within a period of one month and thereafter the departmental enquiry should be concluded finally within a period of three months from the date of submission of reply to the charge sheet. Therefore it appears that the intent of the State Government has been to conclude the departmental enquiry finally within a period of four and half months (fifteen days for service of charge sheet, one month for submitting defence reply to the charge sheet and three months for concluding the departmental enquiry). Not only the above, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another, 2015 16 SCC 415 , has held that the authority concerned must make sincere endeavour to conclude the departmental proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible, it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. In the present case, even the charge sheet has not been served upon the petitioner for about five months i.e. till retirement of the petitioner on 31.12.2016, which itself vitiates the suspension order. However, in the case in hand, the suspension order could have not been issued for the simple reason that if the departmental enquiry against the petitioner has been initiated for providing him minor punishment under Rule 10 (2) of the Discipline Rules, 1999, then there was no occasion to place the petitioner under suspension. It appears that the petitioner has been placed under suspension before five months of his retirement so that if the authority would further deem to harass the petitioner for some more time, the charge sheet would be provided to him without taking recourse under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations. It appears that the petitioner has been placed under suspension before five months of his retirement so that if the authority would further deem to harass the petitioner for some more time, the charge sheet would be provided to him without taking recourse under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations. This intention of the opposite parties has been reflected as the petitioner has been given charge sheet on 19.1.2017 after nineteen days of his retirement without seeking prior approval from the Hon'ble Governor under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations on the premise that the petitioner was under suspension before his retirement. The aforesaid entirety of the facts indicate that while dealing the issue of the petitioner, the concerning authorities were vindictive for no cogent reasons to that effect. In view of the facts and circumstances of the issue, I am of the considered opinion that in the present case, the suspension order could have not been issued against the petitioner, therefore, the said order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the suspension order dated 4.8.2016 passed by the Secretary, Department of Culture, State of U.P., Lucknow, which is contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. Consequences to follow. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs" 6. As per aforesaid judgment and order dated 24.7.2019 the suspension order has been treated nonest in the eyes of law and thereby the same has been quashed. 7. In the present case after 20 days of the retirement of the petitioner he has been served upon the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 wherein six charges were leveled against him. Admittedly, out of these six charges the petitioner was already exonerated from four charges and for remaining two charges he was given show cause notice in the year 2013 but no final decision was taken despite the prompt submission of explanation by the petitioner, therefore, it appears that the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination after his retirement. 8. Assailing the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the charge-sheet has been issued against him for the allegations on which the petitioner has already been found not guilty. 8. Assailing the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the charge-sheet has been issued against him for the allegations on which the petitioner has already been found not guilty. He has further submitted that since the suspension order dated 4.8.2016 was void ab initio being issued where the petitioner has been proceeded departmentally for imposition of minor penalty which is not permissible under the law, therefore, if the authorities were adamant to issue charge-sheet against the petitioner after his retirement, the prior approval from Hon'ble Governor under Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations was required which has not been taken in this case. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2016 and the charges relate to the period from April, 2012 to June, 2012, whereas Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations bars any such inquiry to be initiated by issuing a charge-sheet after expiry of four years from the date of incident. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the period of four year expires on June, 2016, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the opposite parties may not take recourse of Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations and since the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 has been issued without following the legal procedure as prescribed under Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations, therefore, the entire charge-sheet vitiates. 10. This Court vide order dated 9.3.2017 was pleased to stay the operation of the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 until further orders of this Court and that interim order is still existing. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the counter affidavit has been filed on 19.1.2018 and the petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit on 6.3.2018. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, I find that the specific reply to the averments of writ petition has not been given in the counter affidavit. The petitioner has categorically indicated from para 28 to 32 of the writ petition that the present charge-sheet could not have been issued without seeking prior approval from the Hon'ble Governor under Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations. The petitioner has categorically indicated from para 28 to 32 of the writ petition that the present charge-sheet could not have been issued without seeking prior approval from the Hon'ble Governor under Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations. Replying to the contents of these paragraphs of the writ the opposite parties have not denied this specific and categorical submission of the writ petition but as indicated in para 11 of the counter affidavit that the charge-sheet which was issued against the petitioner has been issued strictly in accordance with law, however, as to how this charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law has nowhere been explained in the entire counter affidavit. 13. For the convenience Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations is being reproduced herein below: "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 Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or Judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on reemployment 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 14. In the present case the suspension order dated 4.8.2016 has been treated as nonest being violative of Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 which clearly mandates that suspension order should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the government servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty and admittedly the petitioner was proceeded for imposing minor penalty, therefore, the petitioner may not be treated under suspension at the time of his retirement so the legal recourse as prescribed under Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations was mandatory in the present case which has admittedly not been taken by the competent authority before issuing impugned charge-sheet to the petitioner on 19.1.2017. Besides, the very provision of Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations bars any such inquiry to be initiated by issuing charge-sheet after expiry of four years from the date of incident which took place, in the present case, from April, 2012 to June, 2012. Therefore, in the present case even recourse of Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations may not be adopted. Actually, what I feel in the present case is that when the main focus of the authority is to harass the incumbent any how then the authority loses sight of the mandatory legal requirements and the benefit thereof should surely be given to the incumbent. 15. Therefore, in view of the admitted position that the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 has been issued against the petitioner without taking of legal recourse as prescribed under Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations? and after four years from the date of incident, I am of the considered view that the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 (Annexure no. 15. Therefore, in view of the admitted position that the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 has been issued against the petitioner without taking of legal recourse as prescribed under Regulation 351A of Civil Service Regulations? and after four years from the date of incident, I am of the considered view that the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition) issued by the Inquiry Officer is not sustainable in the eyes of law being nullity and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 16. Accordingly, a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition). 17. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to release post retiral dues of the petitioner including pension, which has yet not been paid to him for which the petitioner is legally entitled ignoring the charge-sheet dated 19.1.2017 within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 9%. 18. Liberty is given to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation claiming interest on the delayed payment on post retiral dues citing the relevant provisions of law which make the person entitled for the interest on the delayed payment of post retiral dues and the authority concerned shall pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law within aforesaid period of three months. 19. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. 20. No order as to costs.