JUDGMENT : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged a memorandum dated 12.06.2020 issued by the Secretary, Government of Tripura by which a departmental inquiry has been instituted against her. The charge leveled in the said memorandum is that the petitioner while serving as Upper Division Clerk in the Education department got the benefit of promotion to the post of Head Clerk as a Scheduled Tribe candidate being a member of Laskar community illegally by way of concealment of her actual caste status. It was alleged that the caste certificate dated 29.03.1976 issued in her favour was subsequently cancelled by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC, for short) by an order dated 07.11.2005 on the ground that she belongs to Laskar community. 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Education department, Government of Tripura on 06.11.1981. She was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk by order dated 07.10.1987. She was then promoted to the post of Head Clerk by order dated 20.01.1994. In the year 2000 the department asked the petitioner to supply her caste certificate for verification. On 17.12.2004 SLSC issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner why her Scheduled Tribe certificate should not be cancelled on the ground of suppression of facts. It was alleged that she belonged to Laskar community and had obtained ST certificate by misrepresentation. The petitioner refuted such allegations by filing a reply. The SLSC passed order on 07.11.2005 cancelling the petitioner’s ST certificate which the petitioner challenged by filing W.P. (C) No. 94 of 2006 before High Court of Tripura. The learned Single Judge by common judgment dated 25.11.2013 disposed of the said petition along with bunch of similar petitions and set aside the order of SLSC. The State of Tripura preferred appeals being W.A. No. 09 of 2014 and others. The Division Bench decided these appeals by a common judgment dated 16.07.2015. The view of the learned Single Judge that the order of SLSC was required to be set aside was confirmed. However, with respect to the decision of learned Judge that the matter should not be remanded to SLSC, the Division Bench differed. Consequently, the appeals of the State were allowed partially and all proceedings were remanded to SLSC for fresh disposal. However, with respect to the decision of learned Judge that the matter should not be remanded to SLSC, the Division Bench differed. Consequently, the appeals of the State were allowed partially and all proceedings were remanded to SLSC for fresh disposal. The petitioners would be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and they would also be allowed to examine their own witnesses. 3. SLSC thereupon passed fresh order in case of the petitioner on 31.05.2016 again cancelling the ST certificate of the petitioner. Petitioner filed a fresh petition being W.P. (C) No. 1070 of 2016 challenging the said order of the SLSC and prayed for the stay of the implementation of the order. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on 31.10.2017 along with other similar petitions. Though many other petitioners filed writ appeals against the said judgment of the Single Judge, the petitioner did not. The judgment of the Single Judge thus achieved finality. In the meantime, the petitioner retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.09.2016. 4. It is in this background that the department has issued the impugned charge-sheet. The sole ground on which this charge-sheet is challenged is that the allegations relate to an incident which took place 4 years prior to the date of institution of the departmental proceedings and, therefore, in terms of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules as adopted by the State of Tripura the disciplinary authority does not have jurisdiction to initiate the departmental proceedings. 5. Learned senior counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner referred to Rule 9(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules and contended that no inquiry against the retired employee would be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. He submitted that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet referred to the petitioner’s promotions which took place many years back. It also refers to the order of cancellation of the caste certificate by the SLSC on 07.11.2005. Thus all events which the department wishes to rely upon in the charge-sheet had taken place several decades before issuance of the charge-sheet and, therefore, the institution of the inquiry is bad in law. 6. It also refers to the order of cancellation of the caste certificate by the SLSC on 07.11.2005. Thus all events which the department wishes to rely upon in the charge-sheet had taken place several decades before issuance of the charge-sheet and, therefore, the institution of the inquiry is bad in law. 6. In support of his contentions, counsel relied on following decisions: (i) In case of State of U.P. and Another vs. Shri Krishna Pandey, (1996) 9 SCC 395 in which after referring to Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations which contained provisions pari materia to Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, the Supreme Court held that the departmental inquiry for embezzlement which was initiated more than 4 years after the delinquent was allowed to retire on superannuation was incompetent. (ii) In case of Brajendra Singh Yambem vs. Union of India and Another, (2016) 9 SCC 20 in which the provisions to Rule 9(2) came up for consideration. Finding that the inquiry against the retired employee was instituted in relation to event which took place more than 4 years before the institution, the proceedings were quashed. (iii) The decision in case of Baljit Singh Handa vs. Punjab and Sind Bank, 2021 SCC Online Del. 653 was cited in the context of the interpretation of the term “any event” used in sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules. The Court referred to number of decisions of the High Courts and Supreme Court and quashed the proceedings observing that any procedure like issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioners seeking the reply and to follow the procedures to declare the accounts NPA will not extend the limitation. 7. On the other hand, learned Government counsel Mr. H. Sarkar opposed the petition contending that the question of validity of the caste certificate of the petitioner was finalized only in the year 2017 when the High Court dismissed the petition against the decision of SLSC to cancel the same. All throughout, the petitioner was resorting to one remedy after another resisting the cancellation of caste certificate. Only after the caste certificate was cancelled by the SLSC and the challenge of the petitioner against such cancellation was turned down by the High Court the Government could have instituted the departmental proceedings. The period of 4 years must, therefore, be reckoned from such date. 8. Only after the caste certificate was cancelled by the SLSC and the challenge of the petitioner against such cancellation was turned down by the High Court the Government could have instituted the departmental proceedings. The period of 4 years must, therefore, be reckoned from such date. 8. Relevant portion of the Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules reads as under: “9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension: (1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement: Provided that the Union 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 pensions shall not be reduced below the amount of Rupees Three thousand five hundred per mensem. (2)(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, 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 President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President. (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 President. (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. (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 President. (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service.” 9. As per this Rule thus the Government has power to withhold pension or gratuity or both if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found to be guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service. Clause (a) of sub-rule (2) provides that the departmental proceedings if instituted while the Government servant was in service shall after the retirement be deemed to be proceedings under the said rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) which is of importance for us provides that the departmental proceedings if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President, (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 as may be directed. 10. This rule has to be appreciated and interpreted in facts of the case which are, that the petitioner claimed to belong to ST (Tripuri Laskar) category. Upon scrutiny, SLSC found that such claim was incorrect and, therefore, passed an order on 07.11.2005 cancelling the certificate. Petitioner challenged this order in W.P. (C) No. 94 of 2006. Pending such petition the Court had granted stay against implementation of the cancellation order of SLSC. This petition was disposed of by the Single Judge on 25.11.2013. The order of SLSC was set aside. The appeal filed by the State Government was allowed by the Division Bench partially by a judgment dated 16.07.2015. Cancellation of the order of SLSC was upheld but the proceedings were remanded for fresh disposal. This petition was disposed of by the Single Judge on 25.11.2013. The order of SLSC was set aside. The appeal filed by the State Government was allowed by the Division Bench partially by a judgment dated 16.07.2015. Cancellation of the order of SLSC was upheld but the proceedings were remanded for fresh disposal. SLSC passed fresh order on 31.05.2016 once again cancelling the certificate of the petitioner which the petitioner challenged by filing a fresh petition being W.P. (C) No. 1070 of 2016 which was dismissed on 31.10.2017. 11. Before focusing on interpretation of Rule 9(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules in background of such facts one more relevant fact need to be noted. As is well known, in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 the Supreme Court in view of large number of allegations of false caste certificates and its serious implications on admissions in educational institutions and appointments on Government posts in reserved categories, gave series of directions by virtue of which whenever the question of correctness of such caste certificate arises, the same would be decided by a specially constituted committee called SLSC. The decision of such committee would be open to challenge only in a writ petition before the High Court. 12. In State of Tripura the dispute of the tribal status of Tripuri (Laskar) community went on for a long time. After the High Court decided all the issues, the aggrieved parties approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by a judgment in case of Srish Kumar Choudhury vs. State of Tripura and Others, AIR 1990 SC 991 held that the Laskar community was not entitled to be treated as Scheduled Tribes. However, a limited respite was given in favour of those who had already got the benefit of reservation till 31.03.1990. Clearly thereafter any claim of a member belonging to Laskar community to the ST status was untenable. 13. The petitioner secured promotion as a Head Clerk as a reserved category candidate after the cutoff date of 31.03.1990 provided by the Supreme Court in case of Srish Kumar Choudhury (supra). However, at the relevant time when the petitioner claimed and was granted promotion as an ST candidate, her caste certificate was not yet cancelled. The question of correctness of the caste certificate had to be decided by SLSC. However, at the relevant time when the petitioner claimed and was granted promotion as an ST candidate, her caste certificate was not yet cancelled. The question of correctness of the caste certificate had to be decided by SLSC. As is well known often times such procedure is time consuming since old records, documents would have to be admitted and appreciated and witnesses to be examined by both sides and cross-examined. In the present case, once the SLSC cancelled the caste certificate, the High Court found a legal lacuna in the procedure adopted and the Division Bench remanded the proceedings to the SLSC for fresh consideration. The fresh order was passed by the SLSC only on 31.05.2016. All throughout when the petitioner had challenged the original order of SLSC either there was a stay from the Single Judge or the judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing the order of the SLSC prevailed. In neither case the department could have instituted any action against the petitioner for illegally claiming promotion in the reserved category. Even the fresh order that the SLSC passed on 31.05.2016 the petitioner challenged in the High Court. Such writ petition was dismissed on 31.10.2017. It is only thereafter that the department could have instituted any legal proceedings against the petitioner. Since there was no stay in the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of SLSC dated 31.05.2016, at best the petitioner can argue that after such date nothing prevented the department from issuing a charge-sheet. The charge-sheet in question is admittedly issued within four years from such date. 14. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules must receive purposive interpretation in context of such facts. In particular, the words “any event” used in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) must receive interpretation which will sub-serve the legislative intent. In plain terms, the legislative intent of framing Rule 9 is to preserve the authority to the Government to withhold pension or gratuity of a retired Government servant if it is found that during his service he was guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. While reserving such rights, the legislation was also conscious of the misuse of such powers and injustice that may be caused to the retired employees if appropriate conditions for exercise of such powers are not imposed. While reserving such rights, the legislation was also conscious of the misuse of such powers and injustice that may be caused to the retired employees if appropriate conditions for exercise of such powers are not imposed. In clause (b) of sub-rule (2), therefore, it has been provided that the departmental proceedings against a retired employee shall not be instituted without the sanction of the President (or the Governor, as the case may be) and shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. This latter condition of providing a limitation for institution of the proceedings would clearly be with the purpose of not racking up age old issues and allegations against a retired employee of the Government. However, this condition does not require the Government, nor would the Court interpret a statute as to requiring an authority to perform an impossible task. If the interpretation advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is accepted and the term “any event” is seen as the event which is the foundation of the allegation contained in the charge-sheet, it would bring about a situation as in the present case where despite allegedly committing serious misconduct the petitioner can never be made departmentally answerable. As noted, the petitioner secured promotion as a Head Clerk as a reserved category candidate. Her caste certificate was finally cancelled on 31.05.2016 and the challenge by the petitioner against this order was rejected by the High Court on 31.10.2017. The term “event” used in the said rule, therefore, must have relation to the cancellation of the caste certificate of the petitioner by the SLSC and which achieved finality by virtue of the judgment of the High Court dated 31.10.2017 which the petitioner did not challenge any further. The institution of the proceedings, thus viewed, was not beyond the period of four years prescribed in the rules. 15. In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.