JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, J. C.M. Application No. 1 of 2023 : Application for Condonation of Delay. 1. This intra Court appeal is barred by limitation by 105 days. 2. Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Shri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sharad Bhatnagar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner. 3. Since cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal is satisfactory, the aforesaid application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Order on Memo of the Appeal 4. The State and its authorities have filed this intra Court appeal, assailing the judgment and order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ-A No. 2854 of 2022 : Dr. Rudra Pratap Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the Hon’ble Single Judge allowed the said writ petition with the following observations/directions : “23. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that inquiry in the present case has been proceeded against the petitioner in gross violation of Article 351-A (a) (ii), and consequently the entire disciplinary proceedings are hit by the mandatory provisions of Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations. Hence, the impugned order dated 14.03.2022, passed by the State Government, is set aside. 24. The writ petition is allowed. Consequences to follow.” 5. Pursuant to the interim order dated 12.12.2017 issued by this Court in Writ-A No. 19975 of 2015 : V.G. Rao Vs. State of U.P. and others, an investigation with regard to irregularities committed in the recruitment for the post of Pasudhan Prasar Adhikari (Veterinary Live Stock Officer) during the period 2013-14 was entrusted to Special Investigation Team, which submitted its report on 11.12.2018, stating that there had been large scale irregularities in conducting the selections. 6. Respondent/writ petitioner (Dr. State of U.P. and others, an investigation with regard to irregularities committed in the recruitment for the post of Pasudhan Prasar Adhikari (Veterinary Live Stock Officer) during the period 2013-14 was entrusted to Special Investigation Team, which submitted its report on 11.12.2018, stating that there had been large scale irregularities in conducting the selections. 6. Respondent/writ petitioner (Dr. Rudra Pratap) was discharging his duties on the post of the Director, Animal Husbandry at the relevant point of time and was also in-charge of the entire selection process, but as he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018, hence after obtaining approval from His Excellency the Governor of State of U.P., a disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the respondent on the basis of the report of S.I.T. and a charge-sheet as well as report of S.I.T. was served upon the respondent on 25.10.2019. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the respondent submitted his reply on 16.12.2019, denying the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer, after due enquiry, submitted its report dated 02.12.2020 to the Disciplinary Authority. A show cause notice dated 14.12.2020 along with a copy of the enquiry report dated 02.12.2020 was served upon the respondent. On receipt of the show cause notice, the respondent submitted his reply on 02.01.2021. By order dated 14.03.2022, punishment order was passed against the respondent, withdrawing his entire paid pension and also to not pay pension in future. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment dated 14.03.2022, the respondent has filed Writ-A No. 2854 of 2022 before this Court. By judgment and order dated 07.09.2022, Hon’ble Single Judge allowed the writ petition in the manner as stated in paragraph-4 hereinabove. The State and its authorities have filed the instant appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 07.09.2022 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge. 8. Challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.2022, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State/appellants has submitted that grave irregularities in recruitment for the post of Pasudhan Prasar Adhikari (Veterinary Live Stock Officer) were committed by various persons, including the respondent/writ petitioner. This Court, while adjudicating Writ Petition No. 19975 of 2015, took cognizance of the said irregularities in the selection process and vide interim order dated 12.12.2017, directed the State Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings and lodge First Information Report. This Court, while adjudicating Writ Petition No. 19975 of 2015, took cognizance of the said irregularities in the selection process and vide interim order dated 12.12.2017, directed the State Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings and lodge First Information Report. In compliance thereof, the State Government had constituted a Special Investigation Team, which recommended to initiate disciplinary proceedings against various persons including the respondent. 9. Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the entire disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent/ writ petitioner in pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 12.12.2017, hence it cannot be said that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent are not in consonance with law and the same are in violation of the provisions of Article 351-A (a) (ii) of the Civil Service Regulations. Therefore, his submission is that the impugned judgment passed by Hon’ble Single Judge is liable to be set-aside. 10. Per contra, Shri Shri Sandeep Dixit, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sharad Bhatnagar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner, has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of the learned Standing Counsel and he has contended that once the respondent attained the age of superannuation and retired on 30.06.2018, for all purposes, relationship of employee and employer between the respondent and the State authorities got severed. He has submitted that the charge-sheet was served upon the respondent on 25.10.2019 levelling the charge of misconduct alleged to have been committed during the period 2013-14, which was more than four years prior to the date of service of the charge-sheet. Hence, the punishment order has been passed in violation of Article 351-A (a) (ii) of the Civil Services Regulations. Shri Dixit submits that Hon’ble Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent. 11. We have examined the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment passed by Hon’ble Single Judge as well as the material brought on record. 12. Article 351A of Civil Service Regulations empowers the State Government to pass an order for recovery of any amount from the pension of an officer on account of losses found in judicial or departmental proceedings to have been caused to the Government by negligence or fraud of such officer during his service. 12. Article 351A of Civil Service Regulations empowers the State Government to pass an order for recovery of any amount from the pension of an officer on account of losses found in judicial or departmental proceedings to have been caused to the Government by negligence or fraud of such officer during his service. Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations reads as under : - “351-A. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused, pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on reemployment after retirement : Provided that : (a) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment : (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor ; (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings, and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made. (b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with Sub-clause (ii) (a), and (c) the Public Service Commission, U.P., shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation. (b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with Sub-clause (ii) (a), and (c) the Public Service Commission, U.P., shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation. -- For the purposes of this article : (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him, or, if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date ; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted : (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made, or a charge-sheet is submitted to a criminal court ; and (ii) in the cases of civil proceedings, on the date on which the plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an application is made, to a civil court. Note. -- As soon, as proceedings or the nature referred to in this article are instituted, the authority which institutes such proceedings shall without delay intimate the fact to the Audit Officer concerned." 13. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision of Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations shows that once the Government Servant retires, it is the Governor who has the right of withholding or withdrawing the pension or any part of it, permanently or for a specified period. The Governor under the said provision has also the right to pass an order for recovery from the pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if the employee is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence during his service or he has been found guilty of gross misconduct. 14. It is, thus, clear that after retirement, withholding or withdrawing a pension and ordering the recovery from pension is permissible to be caused only by the Governor i.e. the State Government in terms of the Rules of Business, not only in case such employee is found causing pecuniary loss to the Government by his misconduct or negligence but also in a cases when the employee concerned is found guilty of grave misconduct. 15. 15. The provision of first proviso appended to Article 351-A of the CSR clearly prohibits institution of departmental proceedings except with the sanction of Governor if such proceedings were not instituted while the employee was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment. Thus, Article 351-A of Civil Services Regulations puts a prohibition of initiating the departmental proceedings in a case of retired government servant. However, such proceedings are permissible to be instituted with the sanction of Governor, that too, in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before institution of such proceedings. The provision further provides that departmental enquiry in such an event shall be conducted by such authority and at such place as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable. 16. Admittedly, the respondent had attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.06.2018. After obtaining permission from his excellency the Governor, charge-sheet was served upon the respondent on 25.10.2019, indicating the misconduct having been committed by him during 2013-14, which is admittedly more than four years prior to date of service of charge-sheet. 17. The Hon’ble Single Judge, after appreciating the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and noting the provisions sub-clause (a) (ii) of Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, has opined that ‘the question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the respondents were under duty to follow the provisions of Article 351-A (a) (ii) of Civil Service Regulations, or the disciplinary proceedings could have been conducted in violation of Article 351-A of CSR, in pursuance to the order of this Court’. 18. The Hon’ble Single Judge, after going through the record, noted the fact that appellants/respondents have not disputed the fact that disciplinary proceedings are sought to be initiated against the writ petitioner/respondent after four years from the date when the charge-sheet was given to him. 18. The Hon’ble Single Judge, after going through the record, noted the fact that appellants/respondents have not disputed the fact that disciplinary proceedings are sought to be initiated against the writ petitioner/respondent after four years from the date when the charge-sheet was given to him. The Hon’ble Single Judge, after going through the order dated 12.12.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 19975 of 2015, noted the fact that ‘From perusal of the entire order, it could not be shown that this Court was informed of the fact that either the petitioner or other persons against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated have retired, had this fact been brought to the knowledge of this Court, they would have adhered to the provisions of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations.’ 19. Noting the aforesaid observations, the Hon’ble Single Judge came to the conclusion that the inquiry has been proceeded against the respondent in gross violation of Article 351-A (a) (ii) of the Civil Services Regulations and as such, the entire disciplinary proceedings are hit by the mandatory provisions of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. In these backdrops, the Hon’ble Single Judge set-aside the order of punishment dated 14.03.2022 and allowed the writ petition by means of the impugned order. 20. The learned Standing Counsel also did not dispute before us that disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent arose out of incident that took place more than four years prior to institution of the proceedings. 21. In view of the aforesaid observation, we are in full agreement with the view taken by the Hon’ble Single Judge and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 22. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs under the facts and circumstances of the case.