JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 3171 of 2022, dismissing the writ petition. 3. The writ petition was filed assailing drawing of a disciplinary proceeding by issuance of a charge sheet dated 25.04.2022. 4. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Science). The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2014. 5. An order dated 31.03.2016 was passed by the respondent No.1 by which the period of absence from duty for 22 years 9 months and 11 days was declared as dies non. The petitioner assailed the said order by filing a writ petition, registered as WPS No. 2238/2016 and the same was disposed of on 13.01.2022. At paragraphs 10 and 11, the learned Single Judge had observed as follows: “10. Thus, from perusal of the Rules and the law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Battilal's case (supra), it would appear that to declare the period of absence from duty of a public servant in violation of Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules, 1965 and further to declare the period of absence as dies non are punitive order and it cannot be passed without proceeding departmentally in view of the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. In the case in hand, the State Government straightway passed the order holding the petitioner guilty of Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules, 1965 and declaring the period of absence as dies non without affording opportunity of hearing to him. The consequence would be, the order of the State Government dated 31.03.2016 becomes vulnerable and it is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent authorities to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law and on its own merits. 11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.” 6. After passing of the aforesaid order, the respondents, as noted earlier, drew up the proceeding on 25.04.2022. 7. The petitioner had assailed the same by filing WPS No. 3171/2022, out of which the present appeal arises. 11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.” 6. After passing of the aforesaid order, the respondents, as noted earlier, drew up the proceeding on 25.04.2022. 7. The petitioner had assailed the same by filing WPS No. 3171/2022, out of which the present appeal arises. The learned Single Judge noted that as liberty was granted in the earlier round of litigation, namely, WPS No. 2238/2016, it cannot be said that the authorities had acted unilaterally/arbitrarily while issuing charge sheet to the petitioner. Taking that view, the writ petition was dismissed. 8. The charge-sheet dated 25.04.2022 was issued to the appellant on the allegation that the petitioner had remained absent from 06.01.1984 to 20.04.1994 and from 21.04.1994 to 17.10.2006. 9. As the petitioner had attained superannuation, it is contended by Mr. Pandey that Rule 9(2)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, the Rules of 1976) would be applicable. 10. Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents also endorses the aforesaid submission. 11. Rule 9(2)(b) of the reads as follows: 9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. - (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) (a) xxx xxx xxx (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.” 12. A perusal of the above would go to show that two conditions are to be satisfied if a departmental proceeding is sought to be initiated against a government servant who had retired: firstly, departmental proceeding can be instituted only after obtaining the sanction of the Governor, and secondly, the departmental proceeding shall not be in respect of any event which had taken place more than four years before such institution. 13. A disciplinary proceeding commences with issuance of a charge-sheet. On a query of the Court, Mr. Gagan Tiwari submits that sanction of the Governor was not obtained before instituting departmental proceedings. He, however, submits that grant of post-facto sanction has been applied for, which is yet to be granted. 14. Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules of 1976 mandates that no disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated save with the sanction of the Governor and therefore, question of grant of post-facto approval under the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules of 1976 does not arise. 15. The event indicated in the charge sheet relates to the period from 06.019.1984 to 20.04.1994 and 21.04.1994 to 17.10.2006 i.e. more than 4 years before institution of the disciplinary proceeding, which is prohibited under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1976. 16. In that view of the matter, the present depart mental proceeding instituted on the basis of charge sheet dated 25.04.2022 cannot be sustained in law. No doubt, liberty was granted by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.01.2022 in WPS No. 2238/2022, enabling the authorities to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law and on its own merits. Grant of such liberty does not enable the authorities to act in violation of the Rules in force. 17. In view of the above discussion, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner is quashed. 18. The writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.