ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the communication dated 30/6/2023 (Annex.10) and order dated 13/7/2023 (Annex.12), whereby, the petitioner has been issued a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (‘the Rules 1958’) and the Additional District Collector (Administration), Chittorgarh has sent a communication to SDO, Gangrar, whereby, the memorandum of charges has been sent to the petitioner. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that the petitioner was served with the charge sheet dated 27/8/2018 under Rule 17 of the Rules, 1958, which was responded to by the petitioner; the proceedings remained pending. 3. On 22/3/2022, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting the disciplinary authority to drop the pending charge sheet. While no order was passed, on 24/3/2023 (Annex.5) a notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit explanation with regard to the proposed inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules, 1958 by the District Collector, Nagaur. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 3/5/2023 (Annex.6) denying all the charges. On 5/5/2023, a communication was received by the petitioner requiring him to respond to the notice (Annex.5), which he had already responded. 4. It is then submitted that on 15/6/2023 (Annex.8) an order was issued indicating that the petitioner is due to retire on 30/6/2023, no inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules, 1958 was pending against him, no other proceedings under Rule 19 of the Rules, 1958 were pending against him and that no judicial proceedings were pending against him. 5. On 30/6/2023 (Annex.9), an order was passed by the District Collector, Chittorgarh indicating that on completing the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, the petitioner is retired from service on 30/6/2023 afternoon. 6. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, on the last day of his retirement at 7.21 pm, a charge sheet was issued under Rule 16 of the Rules, 1958 to the petitioner, which was sent to him on whatsapp at 8.30 pm and the hard copy was in fact served on him by the District Collector on 10/7/2023, which is reflected from Annex.12. 7. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that action of the respondents in issuing the charge sheet to the petitioner after his retirement on 30/6/2023 afternoon is ex facie contrary to the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (‘the Rules 1996’) and as such, the entire action stands vitiated and the charge sheet deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Submissions were made that as admittedly the petitioner was retired on 30/6/2023 afternoon, issuance of charge sheet at 7.21 pm i.e. after office hours is clearly after the petitioner stood retired and, therefore, the case of the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules, 1996, which clearly stipulate that the departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, the same cannot be instituted without the sanction of the Governor and the same cannot be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. 9. It is submitted that though the departmental proceedings have been instituted after the retirement of the petitioner, as sanction from the Governor has not been sought, the charge sheet is bad. 10. Further submissions have been made that a bare look at the charge sheet would reveal that the allegations pertain to the period 13/2/2017 to 26/7/2018, as the same are in respect of the events which took place more than four years before 30/6/2023 and, therefore, on both the counts the charge sheet being contrary to the provisions of Rule 7(2)(b)(i) & (ii) of the Rules, 1996, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. Learned counsel emphasized that as the petitioner has been retired on 30/6/2023 afternoon vide order dated 30/6/2023 (Annex.9) the same clearly means that with the close of office hours, the petitioner stood retired and as the charge sheet has been issued after his retirement at 7:21 pm, the provisions of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules, 1996 would come into play and as the entire action is contrary to the said provisions, the charge sheet deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 13. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 13. The facts are not in dispute, wherein, the petitioner was issued a notice seeking clarification on 24/4/2023 (Annex.5), though the annexure to the communication dated 24/4/2023 has not been filed, from the response dated 3/5/2023 (Annex.6) it appears that the same pertains to the charges similar to the charge sheet which has now been issued to the petitioner on 30/6/2023. 14. It is also not in dispute that, in terms of the Rule 56 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (‘the RSR 1951’) which provides that the date of retirement of a government servant would be afternoon of the last date of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years, the petitioner retired on 30/6/2023 afternoon. Further, from the charge sheet Annex.10 it is apparent that the Joint Secretary has signed the charge sheet at 7.21 pm. on 30/6/2023. 15. The submissions made, as already observed hereinbefore, are that the word ‘afternoon’ refers to the period between 12 noon and evening and does not, in any event, extend beyond the office hours i.e. 5.00 pm and as the charge sheet has been issued at 7.21 pm, the same being post retirement, therefore, the same should have complied with the requirements of Rule 7 (2)(b) of the Rules, 1996. 16. The plea raised, based on the submissions that the petitioner stood retired at the close of office hours on 30/6/2023 has no basis and in fact the issue stands concluded by judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Others vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon, (2008) 2 SCC 41 . In the said case the issue was with regard to initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings, wherein, the Supreme Court noted that the officer had retired on 31/1/2000, prior to that a show cause notice had been issued to him on 13/1/2000 and a reply has been submitted by him on 15/1/2000, however, it was decided to hold a disciplinary inquiry and consequently a regular show cause notice was issued to the officer at 6.40 pm on 31/1/2000. 17. It may be noticed that in the said case also the show cause notice has been served upon the officer after office hours i.e. 6:40 pm, though on the same date he had retired. 17. It may be noticed that in the said case also the show cause notice has been served upon the officer after office hours i.e. 6:40 pm, though on the same date he had retired. In the said factual backdrop the question arose before the Supreme Court as to whether the proceedings have been validly initiated and continued, the Supreme Court held as under: “13. The learned counsel for the appellant is right when he submitted that show-cause notice was issued to the respondent employee on 13-1-2000 when he was very much in service. The respondent submitted his explanation on 15-1-2000 which was not found to be satisfactory. A regular show-cause notice was, therefore, issued by the Corporation on 31-1-2000 and was served upon the respondent employee on the same day. The notice was also sent by registered post which was received by the employee on 11-2-2000. But it is clear from the documents that show-cause notice was issued and replied. A regular show-cause notice as to departmental inquiry was also served upon the respondent employee on the last day of his service which was 31-1-2000. In our opinion, therefore, it could not be said that the proceedings had been initiated against the respondent employee after he retired from service. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 34. It is, therefore, clear that so far as minor penalty is concerned, it is not necessary for the Corporation to follow detailed and lengthy procedure laid down for imposition of major penalties. In the instance case, the proceedings had been initiated by the appellant Corporation against the respondent employee for recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence on his part. The proceedings, hence, could be instituted by issuing notice which was done on 13-1-2000. The said action, therefore, could not have been held bad or without power, authority or jurisdiction on the part of the Corporation. As we have already observed earlier, even regular show-cause notice was served on 31-1-2000 which was also during the employment of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, was wrong in quashing the proceedings and setting aside orders dated 24-3-2001 and 26-4-2005. The impugned order of the High Court, therefore, deserves to be set aside.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. As we have already observed earlier, even regular show-cause notice was served on 31-1-2000 which was also during the employment of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, was wrong in quashing the proceedings and setting aside orders dated 24-3-2001 and 26-4-2005. The impugned order of the High Court, therefore, deserves to be set aside.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. It would be seen from the observations and findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court that the show cause notice issued at 6.40 pm i.e. after office hours was regarded as valid and legal. Further, even in the present case also the explanation was sought from the petitioner on 24/4/2023 (Annex.5) which was responded to by the petitioner on 3/5/2023 (Annex.6), which facts are also similar to that of the above case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 19. In Prabhu Dayal Sesma vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1986 SC 1948 , wherein, the issue had arisen as to whether a person attains a specified age in law on the anniversary of his birthday or on the date preceding that anniversary and considering the entire law on the subject, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the date comes on the preceding and not on the date when his anniversary falls. The observations made in this context read as under: “In calculating a person’s age, the day of his birth must be counted as a whole day and he attains the specified age on the day preceding, the anniversary of his birth day. We have to apply well accepted rules for computation of time. One such rule is that fractions of a day will be omitted in computing a period of time in years or months in the sense that a fraction of a day will be treated as a full day. A legal day commences at 12 o’clock midnight and continues until the same hour the following night. There is a popular misconception that a person does attain a particular age unless and until he has completed a given number of years. In the absence of any express provision, it is well-settled that any specified age in law is to be computed as having been attained on the day preceding the anniversary of the birth day.” (Emphasis supplied) 20. In the absence of any express provision, it is well-settled that any specified age in law is to be computed as having been attained on the day preceding the anniversary of the birth day.” (Emphasis supplied) 20. It was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the legal day commences at 12 o’clock midnight and continues until the same hour the following night and, therefore, it cannot be said that with the close of office hours, the petitioner retired. In fact, the petitioner retired on midnight intervening 30/6/2023 and 1/7/2023 and as such, issuance of the charge sheet at 7.21 pm on 30/6/2023 cannot be said to be in contravention of provisions of Rule 7 (2)(b) of the Rules, 1996. 21. Further, Rule 7(6) (a) of the Rules, 1996 provides that the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the charges together with a statement of allegations on which they are based, or the proposal of Government to take disciplinary action together with the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken, are issued to the Government Servant. Therefore, with the admitted issuance of charge-sheet at 7.21 pm on 30/6/2023 with memorandum of charges, the departmental proceedings stood instituted and on that count also the provisions of Rule 7 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1996 would have no application. 22. Learned counsel attempted to make submission that provisions of Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, 1996 would be applicable irrespective of the fact whether proceedings were initiated while in service or after retirement. This submission has been noted for rejection. The provision reads as under: “7. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension: (1)............... (2) (a).......... (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.” 23. A perusal of the above provision would reveal that the restriction as contained in sub-clause (ii) only pertains to a case where the departmental proceedings have not been instituted while the Government servant was in service and as such, the submission made has no substance. 24. A perusal of the above provision would reveal that the restriction as contained in sub-clause (ii) only pertains to a case where the departmental proceedings have not been instituted while the Government servant was in service and as such, the submission made has no substance. 24. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition insofar as the validity of the charge sheet being contrary to the provisions of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules, 1996 is concerned and, the same is, therefore, dismissed.