ORDER : 1. The substantive challenge in the present Writ Petition is to Annexure P-10, dated 17.10.2016, whereby the Respondents have issued an order of recovery against the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,67,750/-. 2. The challenge primarily is on the ground that the impugned Order (Annexure P-10) is per se in violation of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 which do not empower the Disciplinary Authority to issue recovery orders after the retirement of the government employee. 3. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present Writ Petition are that the Petitioner was working under the Respondent - Public Works Department as an Assistant Engineer and he stood retired from service with effect from 31.12.2009. That, even on the date of retirement or on earlier occasion, there was no charge-sheet issued or show-cause-notice issued or was pending consideration. Neither was there any order of recovery nor any proceeding pending against the Petitioner in respect of the pecuniary loss caused to the Respondents. The Petitioner was not paid the retiral dues for a considerable period of time, except for the releasing of anticipatory pension of 90%. This has led to the filing of the present Writ Petition. 4. Meanwhile, the Respondents have cleared the other retiral dues payable to the Petitioner, like - amount payable under the GIS, family fund, leave encashment, GPF etc. Thus, only the final settlement of the pension and the unpaid gratuity stands to be released by the Respondents. 5. After seven years of the retirement of the Petitioner, the impugned Order (Annexure P-10) has been passed issuing the order of recovery against the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,67,750/-. The said recovery is said to be in respect of an alleged inferior quality of work of the Gidhwa Bamhani-Buchatola road constructed, while the Petitioner was posted at Khairagarh Division (District Rajnandgaon) in the year 2003. The said order of recovery has been issued by the Respondent No.2, the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department. 6. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the Rule position. For ready reference, Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 is reproduced herein under :- “9. The said order of recovery has been issued by the Respondent No.2, the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department. 6. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the Rule position. For ready reference, Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 is reproduced herein 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, 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 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. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX” 7. The plain perusal of the aforesaid Rule position would clearly reflect that even if the order is of recovery for the payment of pecuniary loss caused to the Government, the same can be issued only by an Order from the Governor of the State. 8. As regards the initiating of any disciplinary proceeding for any misconduct committed by the Petitioner, that too could have been initiated only with the permission of the Governor of the State. Moreover, it could have been initiated only within a period of four years from the date of retirement of the government employee. 9. In the instant case, no such disciplinary proceeding as such has been initiated till date and only the order of recovery has been issued on 17.10.2016 (Annexure P-10) that too after about 7 years from the date of retirement of the Petitioner. 10. Thus, from the given factual matrix of the case, admittedly the compliance as is required under Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules of 1976 has not been done before issuing the impugned Order (Annexure P-10). 11. 10. Thus, from the given factual matrix of the case, admittedly the compliance as is required under Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules of 1976 has not been done before issuing the impugned Order (Annexure P-10). 11. The issue involved in the instant case came up for consideration before this High Court in W.P.(S) No.2199/2013 in the matter of “Badri Prasad Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others” reported in 2015 SCC Online Chh 407 where in Paragraphs 6 to 8 it has been held as follows :- “6. A careful perusal and meaningful reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1976 would show that the authority to pass an order for recovery of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government after retirement of Government servant is reserved only to the Governor and no other authority. Proviso to sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1976 makes it ample clear 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 and the Governor in accordance with the procedure applicable to the departmental enquiry may pass appropriate order, but the disciplinary authority who has initiated action prior to retirement of Government servant is not entitled to impose penalty. 7. Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, 1976 came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the M.P. High Court in the matter of State of M.P. and others v. R.L. Ogale and others [ 2006 (2) M.P.H.T. 202 (DB)] in which it has been held in paragraph 8 as under:- “8. A reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, quoted above, shows that the power to pass an order for recovery of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government is reserved only to the Governor and no other Authority. Sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 however, provides that if departmental proceedings were instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, all such departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be proceedings under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, after the final retirement of the Government servant and shall be continued and concluded by the Authority by which they were commenced, in the manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. Hence, if the Conservator of Forest was the Disciplinary Authority in the case of the original respondent and before the retirement of the original respondent from service on 31-8-1985, departmental proceedings have been initiated and charge-sheet has been issued on 22-8-1984 by the Conservator of Forest, the said departmental proceedings are deemed to be proceeding under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, even after retirement of the original respondent. The proviso of sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, however, makes it amply clear that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by the Authority subordinate to the Governor, that Authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor. In the present case, therefore, the Conservator of Forest having initiated the departmental proceedings, before the retirement of the original respondent, was only entitled to continue and complete the same and submit a report to the Governor regarding his findings in the departmental proceedings, but was not entitled to pass a final order for recovery of the loss of Rs.4,10,071.84 from the original respondent. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was right in quashing the order dated 1-6-1991 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Khandwa for recovery of Rs.4,10,071.84 from the original respondent after his retirement on 31-8-1985.” 8. Applying the mandate flowing from the provisions contained in Rule 9 (1) and proviso to sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1976, it is held that once the concerned Government servant has retired after initiation of departmental enquiry and departmental proceeding could not be concluded during his service tenure and concerned Government servant has retired from service, the only course available to respondent No.2 was to submit report to the Governor after conclusion of enquiry along with his finding for appropriate order which he has admittedly, not done and straightway has passed order for recovery of Rs.54,255/- which is in teeth of proviso to Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, 1976 and proviso to sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1976, therefore, such an order of recovery cannot be sustained.” 12. Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case as also the legal position as it stands, the impugned Order dated 17.10.2016 (Annexure P10) having been issued only by the Respondent No.2 and being issued without the permission or the Order passed by the Governor of the State, the same is apparently bad in law, illegal and therefore deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. 13. Respondents are directed to ensure that the entire admissible dues payable to the Petitioner be released to him forthwith within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, including the arrears of pension and the entire gratuity amount payable to the Petitioner. 14. Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.