ORDER : – Shri Prem Singh Pal, learned counsel, for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Bahirani, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/ State. With the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. Present petition is being filed being aggrieved by the order dated 26-8-2016 passed by respondent No. 3 whereby, recovery of the amount of Rs. 90235/- has been made from gratuity of the petitioner an amount of Rs. 5888/- has been deducted in the months of January and February, 2008. 3. Contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that the petitioner stood retired on 30-4-2009 and after ten years, recovery has been directed for the period 1993 to 1999. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without issuance of any show cause notice to petitioner and without there being any departmental inquiry into the matter. He has filed a writ petition being W.P No. 4429 of 2016 which was finally heard and decided on 11-7-2016 whereby, the Hon’ble High Court has disposed of the same with direction to the respondents to decide representation Annexure P/9 and P/10 and if it is found that he is entitled for the recovered amount, the payment may be made to the petitioner. 4. It is alleged by the petitioner that in terms of the settled law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 , the aforesaid recovery is illegal and arbitrary and is in violation of Pension Rules 1976. He has relied upon other orders passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narayan Singh Yadav vs. State of M.P. and others, in W.P.No. 5349 of 2006 (S) and in the case of Javed Mohammad Ansari vs. State of M.P. and others, in W.P.1053 of 2008 (S) which were analogously heard with several petitions and the recovery order was quashed by the Hon. High Court. He prays for quashment of the aforesaid recovery with further directions to the respondents to refund the amount already recovered from him along with interest. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate has filed return and has contended that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 11-7-2016 in W. P. No. 4429 of 2016, the representation filed by the petitioner has been considered and rejected by the respondents. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate has filed return and has contended that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 11-7-2016 in W. P. No. 4429 of 2016, the representation filed by the petitioner has been considered and rejected by the respondents. He has further submitted that the petitioner was assigned with the duties of recovery of empty packages which he recovered but not deposited into Government Treasury. He was liable to deposit an amount of Rs. 46085/- towards the cost of empty packages. He is further liable for recovery of Rs. 49288/- which was spent by him in excess of the amount as to what has been sanctioned vide order dated 12-5-2009. He was further held liable for the recovery of Rs. 750/- by the Audit Team. When he was in service, he was duly informed vide order dated 18-9-1999 and again vide order dated 7-4-2006 that he was required to deposit aforesaid amount which he has not deposited till his retirement. The inquiry was got conducted into the matter and the inquiry committee has found him guilty and a show cause notice was issued to him and only thereafter, the recovery order has been passed. 6. It is not a case where the recovery of the amount paid to the petitioner in excess was made but it is a case where the petitioner was found liable for not depositing the amount towards empty packages in the government treasury and also against the excess amount spent by the petitioner without there being any sanction. The petitioner had also preferred W. P. No. 1411 of 2008 and W. P.No. 21 of 2010, therefore, the recovery order is just and proper and the recovery made from the petitioner does not call for any interference by this Hon’ble Court. 7. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From perusal of annexure P/1, it is seen that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 11-7-2016 in W.P.No. 4429 of 2016, the respondent authorities have again considered the case of the petitioner and it was found that vide office order dated 25-3-2009, the petitioner was found entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs. 46085/- and vide office order dated 12-5-2009, he is found entitled for recovery of Rs. 46085/- and vide office order dated 12-5-2009, he is found entitled for recovery of Rs. 49,288/- which has been spent by the petitioner in excess to what has been sanctioned by the department. The respondents while considering the accounts of the petitioner has found that when in the year 1993 the petitioner was posted as Dy. Ranger in Committee Pandora and in Manpura in the year 1999 and in Committee Badarwas as Nodel Officer he had spent an amount of Rs. 4912/- in excess to the amount sanctioned and immediately vide show cause notice dated 8-9-1999, he was asked to deposit the aforesaid amount. Thereafter again, he was issued a notice on 7-4-2006 but the petitioner has neither filed response to the aforesaid notices and has not submitted that clarification and has not deposited the amount. During audit, an amount of Rs. 750/- was found to be recoverable from the petitioner and therefore, vide letters dated 22-11-2003, 23-1-2004 and 7-4-2006 he was asked to deposit the aforesaid amount. 9. The committee was constituted and in pursuance to the order dated 21-7-2002 an inquiry was conducted into the matter. The committee has submitted the report wherein, the petitioner was found liable for the recovery of amount of Rs. 46085/- which is towards the amount of empty packages which were collected by the petitioner and not deposited in the government treasury. Therefore, notices were issued to the petitioner during his service tenure but the petitioner has not taken care of the same. Order annexure P/3 dated 25-3-2009 and the order issued by the respondents regarding recovery to the tune of Rs. 46085/- is a second order which is a modified order as in the earlier order dated 1-11-2007 by clerical mistake, adjudication of the petitioner as well as recovery amount was wrongly mentioned but the authorities have corrected the same. Vide letter dated 30-3-2009 Annexure P/4, an amount of Rs. 5888/- was recovered from the salary of the petitioner and the same was in pursuance to the letter dated 25-3-2009 wherein, the recovery of Rs. 46085/- was directed against the petitioner. From perusal of Annexure P/5, which deals with the recovery of amount spent by the petitioner in excess and the recovery in pursuance to the audit was reflected in the aforesaid letter and is based upon the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry committee. 46085/- was directed against the petitioner. From perusal of Annexure P/5, which deals with the recovery of amount spent by the petitioner in excess and the recovery in pursuance to the audit was reflected in the aforesaid letter and is based upon the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry committee. The petitioner after completing the age of superannuation stood retired on 30-4-2009 but the letters Annexure P/3 and P/4 which had been issued to him were prior to his retirement. Annexure P/6 again issued to the petitioner directing for recovery of amount from gratuity of the petitioner. 10. Recovery after retirement of an employee is governed by the Pension Rules wherein, Rule 9 is relevant which reads as under : “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 [xxx], 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. (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 it 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”. 11. From perusal of the aforesaid rule, it is clear that recovery from retired employee is not permissible without approval of Governor. In the present case, though the proceedings for recovery were initiated by the authorities well in time when the petitioner was in service, but the authorities have failed to recover this amount during service tenure and fag end of his service tenure, the recovery is made from the gratuity of the petitioner after his retirement. The petitioner has submitted representations Annexure P/7 to P/9 which are not being decided by the authorities. A direction was given by the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 11-7-2016 passed in W.P.No. 4429 of 2016 wherein, the respondents were directed to decide representations of the petitioner. But despite of specific direction of this Court, the authorities have not taken into consideration the representations submitted by the petitioner. On the contrary, it is reflected from the impugned order dated 26-8-2016 that no response has been submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice nor any representation has been submitted by him. The recovery from the retired employee is per se illegal, in view of Pension Rules, 1976, without there being any approval of the Governor of State and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafique Masih (Supra). 12. The recovery from the retired employee is per se illegal, in view of Pension Rules, 1976, without there being any approval of the Governor of State and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafique Masih (Supra). 12. In W. P. No. 1053 of 2008 (S) which was analogously heard and decided along with several writ petitions, decided vide order dated 28-7-2012, the Hon’ble Court has observed that without following principles of natural justice, as has been held by Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496, the recovery order was found to be illegal. The respondents by filing reply has failed to take into consideration the fact that any opportunity of hearing by the inquiry committee was given and whether any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the committee. Thus, in absence of any material on record to demonstrate the aforesaid facts, the order impugned dated 26-8-2016 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The amount which has been recovered from the petitioner from his gratuity is directed to be refunded back to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery. Let needful be done within a period of three months. However, the liberty is extended to the respondent/State to initiate the process if permissible under the law. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with no order as to the cost. C.C. as per rules.