JUDGMENT Vikas Budhwar, J. Heard Shri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Shri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 as well as Shri Arjun Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. In the view of the order proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to the sixth respondent. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the sixth respondent-institution, Sarvodaya Mandir Inter College, Mahawatpur Bawli is an institution which is aided upto Junior High School level, however, the Classes 9 to 12 is running as viit viheen. The writ petitioner claims to have been appointed as an assistant teacher in the Junior High School of the sixth respondent-institution and thereafter post occurrence of the vacancy on the post of principal and he was allowed to work as principal he superannuated on 31.03.2021. Post retirement, the writ petitioner approached the respondents for the payment and pension and thereafter the competent authority proceeded to issue a PPO dated 05.07.2021 for processing of the pension of the writ petitioner. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that one Shri Babu Ram who is the Assistant Teacher who claimed appointment on the basis of forged certificates was subjected to proceedings and the services of Babu Ram was declared to be void by virtue of an order dated 07.01.2022. 4. Being aggrieved against dislodging of his services, he preferred a complaint dated 22.08.2022 before the second respondent, Mid Day Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow regarding the misappropriation of the funds related to mid day meals. On the basis of the complaint dated 22.08.2022 of Shri Babu Ram, the District Basic Education Officer, district Baghpat, third respondent constituted a three member committee while issuing the notice on 30.09.2022, requiring the writ petitioner who at that time stood superannuated to submit his reply/clarification. The writ petitioner claims to have submitted his clarification/reply on 30.10.2022 before the District Basic Education Officer, district Baghpat mentioning therein that he be furnished complete documents which were being sought to be relied upon in order to initiate proceedings against him. The writ petitioner claims to have submitted his clarification/reply on 30.10.2022 before the District Basic Education Officer, district Baghpat mentioning therein that he be furnished complete documents which were being sought to be relied upon in order to initiate proceedings against him. However, according to the writ petitioner without furnishing the document as required by the writ petitioner making the basis of the complaint dated 22.08.2022, the inquiry committee submitted an ex-parte inquiry report dated 07.11.2022 holding that the writ petitioner had committed financial misappropriation. The writ petitioner on coming to know about the same submitted a representation/letter dated 09.11.2022 before the inquiry officer, Block Education Officer, Baraut, District Baghpat, thereafter, a notice is stated to have been issued by the District Basic Education Officer, district Baghpat, third respondent on 11.11.2022 requiring the writ petitioner to submit his version/response by 22.11.2022. The writ petitioner on 17.11.2022 submitted a letter to the District Basic Education Officer, district Baghpat requiring the third respondent to furnish the documents which were being made the basis of initiate proceedings against him post retirement. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that a communication was issued by the District Basic Education Officer, district Baghpat, third respondent on 21.11.2022 and the manager of the committee of management who were directed to submit required inputs. On 30.09.2022, the Finance and Accounts Officer (Basic), Baghpat proceeded to pass an order/notice whereby the writ petitioner was required to appear before the inquiry committee within 7 days and give explanation about the misappropriation and mis-utilization of Government funds even after superannuating. 5. The writ petitioner herein preferred Writ A No. 5019 of 2023 Surendra Dutt Kaushik v. State of U.P. And 4 others challenging the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Finance and Accounts Officer (Basic), Baghpat. The said writ petition came to be decided on 03.04.2023 while passing the following orders: "Instructions filed today by Sri Arjun Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 is taken on record. Heard Sri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arjun Prasad Yadav, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4, & 5. Heard Sri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arjun Prasad Yadav, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4, & 5. The challenge in this writ petition is to the entire proceedings initiated pursuant to the notice dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Enquiry Committee as also the notice dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Finance and Accounts Officer, District Baghpat, where-under the petitioner has been asked to appear before the Enquiry Committee within 7 days and to present his case as to under what circumstances the government funds have been misappropriated and utilized even after superannuating from the service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2021 from the post of Principal of the Institution in question and the respondents have initiated the proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice after the petitioner has superannuated and as such the entire proceedings are violative of Article 351A of the C.S.R. Rules. Sri Arjun Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that the writ petition is merely against a show cause notice and as such is not maintainable. The notice alleges that the petitioner has made serious misappropriation of funds with regard to the mid-day meals and some important funds misappropriated even after superannuation of the petitioner and the impugned notice only requires the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Committee and submit his explanation. He further submits that similar notices were issued in earlier point of time but the petitioner has not responded against them. He further submits that the petitioner may be directed to comply with the requirement of notice and submit his explanation. Sri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is willing to submit his reply to the show cause notice provided the respondents supply to him the materials against which he may prepare his reply. He submits that the respondents may be directed to supply the requisite material. Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.3 submits that in the event the petitioner files application before the Respondent No.3 within a week from today clearly stating the documents required by him, the same shall be provided to the petitioner where-after the petitioner may submit his reply within next two weeks. Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.3 submits that in the event the petitioner files application before the Respondent No.3 within a week from today clearly stating the documents required by him, the same shall be provided to the petitioner where-after the petitioner may submit his reply within next two weeks. The Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending before this Court and the writ petition may be disposed of by requiring the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Respondent No.3 within two weeks from today demanding the requisite papers required by him and the Respondent No.3 shall be obliged to provide the petitioner with the necessary papers. The petitioner shall thereafter submit his reply in terms of the notice issued to him within next two weeks. The Respondent No.3, District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat shall take final decision in the matter and communicate the same to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed by the Respondent No.3 within one month. While taking decision in the matter the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat shall also dwell upon the question as to whether the proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner even after his superannuation. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of." 6. Thereafter on 11.04.2023, the District Basic Education Officer, district Baghpat issued a communication to the writ petitioner and the sixth respondent, committee of management requiring them to be present on 15.04.2023. The writ petitioner on 17.04.2023 required the District Basic Education Officer, district Baghpat, third respondent to furnish the documents which were made the basis for holding the writ petitioner guilty of the said allegations. Thereafter on 17.04.2023 again a notice was issued by the District Basic Education Officer requiring the writ petitioner, the manager of the institution as well as the complainant to be present on 20.04.2023. Since the writ petitioner was not furnished the documents which were made the basis for imposition of the monetary liability so the writ petitioner again represented the matter on 20.04.2023/26.04.2023 before the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat, third respondent. On 27.04.2023 again a communication was issued by the District Basic Education Officer requiring the writ petitioner to submit reply by 01.05.2023. On 27.04.2023 again a communication was issued by the District Basic Education Officer requiring the writ petitioner to submit reply by 01.05.2023. The writ petitioner submitted reply to the said communication on 02.05.2023 clearly pointing out that there was no provision to conduct the said proceedings post retirement. However, according to the writ petitioner now the order impugned has been passed on 20.05.2023 whereby the recovery is being directed to be initiated against the writ petitioner while taking coercive action. Thereafter a consequential order has been passed on 24.05.2023 by the Block Education Officer, Baraut, Baghpat. 7. Questioning the said order dated 20.05.2023 passed by the third respondent, District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat as well as the consequential orders to be passed by Block Education Officer, Baraut, Baghpat, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 8. The writ petition was entertained by this Court on 07.07.2023 wherein the following orders were passed: "Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned Standing Counsel had pointed out that this case is cognizable by another Bench dealing with such matters. This Court thereafter inquired from the office as to whether the matter is cognizable by this Court or not, it has been apprised that the matter is cognizable by this Court. Accordingly, the Court is proceeding with the matter. Sri Arjun Prasad Yadav appearing for Respondent no.2 has produced before this Court instructions dated 20.5.2023 under the signature of the third respondent. Put up this case on 11.07.2023 as fresh. In the meantime, copy of the instructions be served upon the learned counsel for the writ petitioner so that he may thoroughly go through the same and may make submissions on the basis of the same." 9. Thereafter on 11.07.2023, another order has been passed which is quoted hereinbelow: "Pursuant to the order dated 07.07.2023, the copy of the instructions have been served upon the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Since, the writ of certiorari is being sought for challenging the orders dated 20.05.2023 and 24.05.2023, let a counter affidavit be filed by the respondent on factual as well as legal issues demonstrating under which provision of law, even if, show cause notice had been issued prior to retirement but the pendency of the proceedings culminated into passing of order subsequent to the retirement. The counter affidavit should also be accompanied with all the documents which the respondents seek to rely upon. Since, the second respondent is already possessed with the instructions and the instructions provided by them is under the signature of District Basic Education Officer, District Baghpat, thus, the copy of the same being served upon Standing Counsel so as to enable them who also file counter affidavit Ten days' time is accorded to file counter affidavit and two days for rejoinder affidavit. Put up this case as a fresh case on 27.07.2023." 10. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent and the third respondent by the Block Education Officer (Head Quarter) District Baghpat dated 02.08.2023 to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed. 11. An application No. 02 of 2023 purported to be under Chapter XXII Rule 5A of the High Court Rules read with section 151 of the CPC, 1908 has been preferred by one Shri Babu Ram complainant, however, the Court has permitted Shri Ritesh Upadhyay to be heard as a intervenor. 12. Shri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the entire proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner, post retirement is without authority as the only provision under law is Regulation 351A of the Civil Services Regulation which empowers the appointing authority to initiate deparmental proceedings post retirement. He submits that in the present in the present case in hand, no proceedings were initiated under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations. According to him, post retirement, a no dues certificate was issued on 05.07.1921. Submission is that since neither departmental nor judicial or criminal proceedings were pending on the date of the retirement of the writ petitioner thus there was no occasion for the respondents to have withheld the pension and recovered the said amount in lieu thereof. It is also contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that on the basis of a complaint of a rank stranger, Babu Ram. 13. Countering the submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Shri Arjun Prasad Yadav who appears for the second respondent has submitted that the writ petitioner had indulged in financial misappropriations of the funds of the mid day meal as in the first phase misappropriation was a period from 24.03.2020 to June 2020 during the lock-down period totalling to Rs. 2,98,629/- followed by the second phase from 1st of July 2020 to 31.08.2020 totalling to Rs. 62,050/-, third phase from first September 2020 to 31.12.2021 Rs. 2,26,568/- and the fourth phase 24.03.2021 to 23.08.2021 to Rs. 1,36,465/- totalling to Rs. 7,23,712/-. Submission is that so far as the first and the second phase is concerned the misappropriation was prior to his retirement i.e. 31.03.2021 and with respect to third and fourth phase, they are post retirement. He submits that in view of the Government orders dated 28.10.1980 and 30.09.1982, the respondents can recover the said amount. He further argues that in view of the said Government orders, the provisions of 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations would not play role, particularly, when the present case is not a case of departmental inquiry as it is a fact finding inquiry for recovery of a misappropriated amounts by a custodian itself. 14. Shri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Standing Counsel has adopted the argument of the learned counsel for the second respondent. He submits that the order in question is perfectly valid in accordance with law as the entire action has been taken in pursuance of the Government order issued from time to time and the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief on equitable grounds also. 15. Shri Ritesh Upadhyay who appears for the complainant has adopted the argument of Shri Arjun Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. He submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived liable to be dismissed as post retirement also the writ petitioner has misappropriated the public money which was meant for mid day meal. 16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 17. The facts of the case are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner retired on 31.03.2021 as a Principal of the institution in question. The bone of contention between the parties is as to whether any proceedings for recovery of the said amount could have been undertaken post retirement of the writ petitioner. 17. The facts of the case are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner retired on 31.03.2021 as a Principal of the institution in question. The bone of contention between the parties is as to whether any proceedings for recovery of the said amount could have been undertaken post retirement of the writ petitioner. Though the writ petitioner seeks to rely upon the provisions contained under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation which according to the writ petitioner is the only source of power for holding departmental proceedings against a retired employee but according to the learned counsels for the respondents, the Government order dated 28.10.1980 as modified on 30.09.1982 would come into play. From the perusal of the order impugned dated 20.05.2023 of the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat, third respondent it is apparent that the said Government orders has been relied upon for making recovery. 18. From the perusal of the order impugned dated 20.05.2023 of the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat, third respondent it is apparent that the said Government orders has been relied upon for making recovery. 18. For the sake of brevity, the Government order dated 28.10.1980 and 30.09.1982 are being quoted hereinunder: ^^izs"kd] Jh ckyd`".k prqoZsnh fo'ks"k lfpo mÙkj izns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] leLr foHkkxk/;{k ,oa izeq[k dk;kZyk/;{k] mÙkj izns'kA foÙk ¼lkekU;½ vuqHkkx&3 y[kuÅ] fnukad 28 väwcj] 1980 fo"k;%& lsok fuo`Ùk ljdkjh lsodksa] ftuds fo:) oSHkkfxd vFkok U;kf;d dk;Zokgh vFkok iz'kklukf/kdkjhx.k@lrdZrk tkap py jgh gks] dks vfUre isa'ku dk HkqxrkuA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ij eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd jkT; ljdkj ds isa'ku laca/kh orZeku fu;eksa esa vHkh rd bl vk'k; dk dksbZ fof'k"V izkfo/kku ugha gS fd lsok fuo`fÙk ds fnukad dks] vFkok lsokfuo`Ùk gksus ds mijkar ;fn deZpkjh ds fo:) dksbZ foHkkxh; U;kf;d dks;Zokgh vFkok iz'kklukf/kdj.k@lrdZrk tkap pkjh gks vFkok tkjh fd;k tkuk visf{kr gks rks D;k mls isa'ku rFkk vU; uSo`fÙkd ykHk ns; gksaxs ;k ugha\ mä fLFkfr esa lkekU;r% viuk;s x;s n`f"Vdks.k vkSj iz;qDr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj tc rd ml dkZokgh vFkok tkap dk ifj.kke izkIr u gks tk;s rc rd lacaf/kr lsod dks dksbZ is'aku o xzsP;qVh dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k tkrk gSA mä dk;Zokfg;ksa vkSj tkap ds iwjh gksus vkSj fQj vko';d vkSipkfjdrk;sa iwjh dj vafre fu.kZ; ysus esa vf/kd le; Hkh yx ldrk gS vkSj ml n'kk esa lacaf/kr lsok fuo`r deZpkjh o"kkZsa rd lsok uSo`frd ykHkksa ls oafpr jgrk gS ftlls mls dkQh vkfFkZd dfBukbZ dk lkeuk djuk iM+ ldrk gSA blds vfrfjä dbZ ekeyksa esa dk;Zokgh ;k tkap ds ifj.kke Lo:i deZpkjh funkZs"k ik;k tk ldrk gSA bl izlax esa vkidk /;ku 'kk0v0la0 lk&3&2085@nl&907@76] fnukad 13-12-1977 dh vksj Hkh vkdf"kZr djuk gS ftlesa ,sls ekeys esa] ftuesa isa'ku xzsP;qVh dh Lohd`fr vkSj dkxtkr rS;kj djus dh dk;Zokgh fu/kkZfjr le; esa iwjh u gks lds] vafre isa'ku o vkuqrkf"kd fn;s tkus ds vkns'k izlkfjr fd;s x;s FksA bu vkns'kksa dk ykHk Hkh mi;Zqä dk;Zokgh vFkok tkap ds ekeyksa esa ugha fey ikrk gSA 2- bl iz'u ij xaHkhjrk iowZd fopkj djus ds mijkar rFkk bl ckr dks ns[krs gq, fd jkT; esa iz;qDr fu;eksa vkSj vkns'kksa ds varxZr lkekU;r% lsokfuo`Ùk deZpkjh dks isa'ku rFkk xzsP;qVh ds vafre :i esa fu/kkZfjr u gks ldus ij vafre isa'ku@xzsP;qVh Lohdkj fd;s tkus dh O;oLFkk gS] Jh jkT;iky egksn; us lg"kZ ;g vkns'k iznku fd;s gSa fd lsok fuo`Ùk ds le; foHkkxh; U;kf;d dk;Zokgh vFkok iz'kklukf/kdj.k@lrZdrk tkap py jgh gks vFkok fd;k tkuk visf{kr gks] vafre isa'ku dk Hkqxrku vf/kd`r dj fn;k tk;s] fdarq xzsP;qVh dk Hkqxrku fdlh Hkh n'kk esa mä dk;Zokgh ;k tkap iwjh gksus vkSj vafre fu.kZ; gksus ds iwoZ u fd;k tk;sA xzsP;qVh dh /kujkf'k ls og dVkSfr;ka dh tk;sxh ftudk mYys[k foHkkxh;@iz'kklfud dk;Zokgh bR;kfn ds QyLo:i ikfjr vkns'k esa fd;k x;k gksA ,sls ekeyksa esa vafre isa'ku dh Lohd`fr fuEu O;oLFkk ds v/khu ns; gksxh& ¼1½ vafre isa'ku ml /kujkf'k ds cjkcj gksxh tks mldh lsokfuo`fÙk dh frfFk rd vkSj ;fn deZpkjh lsok fuo`fÙk dh frfFk dks fuyafcr gks rks mlds fuyacu ds Bhd igys dh frfFk rd dh vgZdkjh lsokdky ds vuqlkj vuqeU; gksrh gks] ¼2½ ;g isa'ku lsokfuo`fÙk dh frfFk ls ml fnukad rd feysxh tc deZpkjh ds fo:) dk;Zokgh tkap iw.kZ gksus ij l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk vafre vkns'k ikfjr djk fn;s tk;as] rFkk ¼3½ bl vafre isa'ku dk] dk;Zokgh iw.kZ gks tkus ds mijkar varr% deZpkjh dks Lohd`r gksus okyh isa'ku esa lek;kstu dj fy;k tk;sxk fdarq ;fn vafre :i ls Lohd`fr gksus okh isa'ku dh jkf'k vafre isa'ku ls de gks vFkok isa'ku LFkk;h :i ls vFkok fdlh fuf'pr vof/k ds fy;s de dj nh tk; ;k vkLFkfxr dh tk;s] rks deZpkjh ls dksbZ olwuh ugha dh tk;sxhA 3- mi;qZä O;oLFkk rqjar izHkkoh ekuh tk;sxh rFkk isa'ku laca/kh fu;e rnuqlkj la'kksf/kr le>s tk;saxs vkSj vkSipkfjd la'kks/ku ckn esa ;Fkkle; fd;s tk;saxsA 4- d`Ik;k bl 'kklukns'k dh izkfIr Lohdkj djsaA Hkonh; ckyd`".k prqosZnh] fo'ks"k lfpoA** ^^izs"kd] Jh txeksgu yky ctkt] foÙk lfpo] mÙkj izns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] leLr foHkkxk/;{k ,oa izeq[k dk;kZy;k/;{k] mÙkj izns'kA foÙk ¼lkekU;½ vuqHkkx&3 y[kuÅ] fnukad 30 flracj] 1982 fo"k;& lsokfuo`Ùk ljdkjh lsodksa ftuds fo:) lrdZrk tkap py jgh gks] dks vafre isa'ku dk HkqxrkuA egksn;] eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd lsokfuo`Ùk gksus okys ,sls ljdkjh lsodksa] ftuds fo:) loskfuo`fÙk ds le; oSHkkfxd vFkok U;kf;d dk;Zokgh vFkok lrdZrk@iz'kklukf/kdj.k tkp py jgh gks vFkok fd;k tkuk visf{kr gks dks fu;ekuqlkj ns; xzP;qVh dh lEiw.kZ /kujkf'k jksd dj dfri; 'krkZsa ds v/khu vafre isa'ku dk Hkqxrku fd;s tkus dh O;oLFkk 'kklukns'k la0 lk&3&1070\@nl&80@999\ 79 fnukad 20 vDVwcj] 1980 rFkk ea0 lk 3&1000@nl 909\&79 fnukad 24 vDVwcj] 1981 esa dh xbZ FkhA 2& mijksDr ekeys ij iqufoZpkj djus ij ;g ik;k x;k gS fd lrdZrk tkap ,d QSDV Qkbaflax bUDok;jh gksrh gS] foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ughaA ;fn bl tkap ds QyLo:i ljdkjh lsodksa ds fo:) ,sls rF; lEeq[k vkrs gSa ftuds fy;s oSHkkfxd@U;kf;d dk;Zokgh dh vko';drk gks rks ,slh dk;Zokgh vkjaHk ugha dh tk ldh gS rks lsokfuo`fÙk ds ckn lh0,l0vkj0 ds vuqPNsn 351&, ds varxZr ,slh dk;Zokgh vkjaHk djus dh frfFk ls iwoZ 4 oxZ dh vof/k ds vanj ?kfVr gqbZ gksA mä fu;e esa izkfo/kku gS fd oSHkkfxd@U;kf;d dk;Zokgh ds QyLo:i nks"kh ik;s x;s ljdkjh lsod dh iwjh vFkok vkaf'kd isa'ku LFkkbZ :i ls ;k fu/kkZfjr vof/k rd jksdh ;k vigfjr dh tk ldrh gS ;k ;fn Lohd`r gks xbZ gks rks okil yh tk ldrh gS vFkok 'kklu dks gqbZ vkfFkZd gkfu dh mlls olwyh dh tk ldrh gS bl izdkj ;g Li"V gS fd lrdZrk tkap ;k vU; fdlh QSDV QkbafMax tkap ds ekeyksa esa isa'ku Lohd`r dj nsus ds ckn Hkh nks"kh losdksa dh isa'ku jksdus de djus] lekIr djus rFkk gkfu dh olwyh djkus dk 'kklu dk vf/kdkj lh0,l0vkj0 ds vuqPNsn 351&, esa of.kZr izfrca/kksa ds v/khu cuk jgrk gS fdarq lrdZrk tkap ds nkSjku vafre isa'ku@xzsP;qVh dk Hkqxrku jksdus ls lsokfuo`Ùk deZpkfj;ksa dks vuko';d :i ls dfBukbZ dk lkeuk djuk iM+rk gSA 3& of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mijksDr 'kklukns'k fnukad 28 vDVwcj] 1980 rFkk fnukad 24 vDVwcj] 1981 dk vkaf'kd la'kks/ku djrs gq;s 'kklu }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd muesa fufgr vkns'k lrdZrk tkap ds ekeyksa esa ykxw u fd;s tk;saxs vkSj lsokfuo`Ùk gksus okys ljdkjh lsodksa dh isa'ku@xzsP;qVh dk Hkqxrku bl vk/kkj ij u jksdk tk;s fd muds fo:) lrdZrk tkap py jgh gSA foHkkxh;@U;kf;d dk;Zokgh vFkok iz'kklukf/kdj.k tkap ds ekeyksa esa vafre isa'ku Lohd`r djus rFkk xzsP;qVh dh laiw.kZ /kujkf'k jksds j[kus dh O;oLFkk iwoZ dh Hkkafr cuh jgsxhA 4& mi;qZDr O;oLFkk ls lacaf/kr fu;e la'kksf/kr ekus tk;saxs vkSj vkSipkfjd la'kks/ku ;Fkkle; vyx ls fd;s tk;saxsA 5& d`Ik;k bl 'kklukns'k dh izkfIr Lohdkj dh tk;sA Hkonh;] txeksgu yky ctkt foÙk lfpoA** 19. Perusal of the Government order dated 28.10.1980 would reveal that the same contains the subject with respect to payment of provisional pension of the retired employee against whom departmental enquiry or judicial/vigilance inquiry is pending. As per the said Government order, in the case where departmental, judicial or vigilance inquiry are pending, the payment of full and final pension and gratuity would not be made and post concluding of the said proceedings a decision is said to be taken. 20. The Government order dated 28.10.1980 came to be modified by virtue of another Government order dated 30.09.1982 according to which, in para 3, it has been clarified that the Government order dated 28.10.1990 stand modified to the extent that withholding of full and final pension and gratuity on the ground of the pendency of a vigilance inquiry would not be justifiable as the same can only be withheld once departmental/judicial/criminal proceedings are pending. Relying upon the said Government orders, recovery was directed to be made. 21. Now a question arises as to whether the said Government orders can be used as a tool against the writ petitioner. 22. Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations quoted hereinunder: "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 re-employment after retirement: Provided that- (a) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during reemployment - 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;" 23. Here in the present case, the Court finds that the Government order dated 28.10.1980 deals with withholding of pension owing to pendency of departmental, judicial and vigilance inquiry requiring payment of provisional pension and not full and final pension and gratuity. Here in the present case, the Court finds that the Government order dated 28.10.1980 deals with withholding of pension owing to pendency of departmental, judicial and vigilance inquiry requiring payment of provisional pension and not full and final pension and gratuity. However, the said Government order stood modified on 30.09.1982 whereby now with respect to pendency of vigilance inquiry withholding of full pension and gratuity was made impermissible. In the present case in hand the Court finds that neither departmental inquiry nor judicial proceedings or vigilance inquiry was pending on the date of the retirement and further no proceedings under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation was initiated. The only proceedings which was initiated post retirement of the writ petitioner was an inquiry on the basis of a complaint of Shri Babu Ram while constituting a three member committee under the orders of the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat. The said inquiry cannot be said to be a departmental inquiry. Moreover at best it can be said to be a fact finding inquiry other than a departmental inquiry. Since Article 351-A Civil Services Regulations provides for mode and the manner according to which post retirement, departmental inquiry can be conducted against the Government servant but the said procedure has not been adopted thus this Court is of the opinion that no recovery could to have been made against the writ petitioner. Apart from the same, it is also the allegation of the writ petitioner that he was not furnished the documents and the inputs which were made the basis issuance of the order of recovery while relying upon the paragraph Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 25, 27 of the writ petition, but, from the perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, Block Development Officer, Baraut, Baghpat, this Court finds that the averments contained in the said paragraphs have been evasively replied in paragraph Nos. 18 to 20. 24. Accordingly, the writ petitioner is allowed and the order dated dated 20.05.2023 passed by the third respondent, District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat and the consequential order dated 24.05.2023 of the Block Development Officer, Baraut Baghpat are set aside. A mandamus issued to the respondents to accord post retrial benefits to the writ petitioner as permissible in law forthwith. 24. Accordingly, the writ petitioner is allowed and the order dated dated 20.05.2023 passed by the third respondent, District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat and the consequential order dated 24.05.2023 of the Block Development Officer, Baraut Baghpat are set aside. A mandamus issued to the respondents to accord post retrial benefits to the writ petitioner as permissible in law forthwith. The order passed today would not preclude the respondents to recover the said amount if it is permissible under any provision of law.