ORDER : Sheel Nagu, J. CONTENT AND CONTEXT Petitioners, three in number who have retired from the post of Deputy Director (in case of petitioner No. 1), Assistant Director (in case of petitioner No. 2) and Sericulture Inspector (in case of petitioner No. 3), have preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashment of common disciplinary proceedings commenced against them vide Annexure P/5 dated 21-5-2021 inter alia on the ground that the same are statutorily barred by Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (“Pension Rules” for brevity). 2. Since a pure legal question is raised, this Court refrains from entering into the merits of the charges alleged and restricts judicial scrutiny to the applicability/non-applicability of the statutory bar contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Pension Rules. FACTS 3. The foundational facts necessary for adjudicating the aforesaid legal question are as follows : Name Date of superannuation Date of issuance of charge-sheet Period of service tenure of petitioner during which misconduct is alleged Petitioner No. 1 30-6-2017 29-6-2021 1-4-2007 to 17-6-2015 Petitioner No. 2 31-3-2017 29-6-2021 18-6-2015 to 31-3-2017 Petitioner No. 3 31-10-2020 29-6-2021 1-4-2007 to 12-10-2010 3.1 In the backdrop of aforesaid factual undisputed matrix, what has to be seen is whether the institution of common departmental proceedings by charge-sheet dated 29-6-2021, was within four years of the event which gave rise to the misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet. 4. Relevant Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules for ready reference and convenience is reproduced below : “9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. 4. Relevant Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules for ready reference and convenience is reproduced below : “9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. — (1) xxx xxx xxx xxx (2)(a) xxx 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; (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 proceeding :— (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.” 4.1 The statutory bar/restriction stipulated in Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules is primarily to protect a retired government servant from being harassed in the evening of his life. As such, the Rule Making Authority has thought it fit to impose a restriction upon the power of the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding upon retired government servant. The Rule Making Authority in its discretion and wisdom found the period of four years counted from the date of the event giving rise to misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet, to be enough for the competent authority to issue charge-sheet against retired government servant thereby correspondingly protecting the retired government servant from undue harassment arising from delayed initiation of disciplinary proceeding after superannuation. Thus, the said Rule is not only reasonable but based on the principle of fair play and good conscious. 4.2 Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules contains three restrictions/ prohibition. Thus, the said Rule is not only reasonable but based on the principle of fair play and good conscious. 4.2 Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules contains three restrictions/ prohibition. The first two prohibitions are that if charge-sheet is issued against a retired government servant then the same can be done only with the sanction of the Governor. The other prohibition is that the issuance of such charge-sheet against a retired government servant cannot be for an event/misconduct which took place more than four years before institution of disciplinary proceeding (issuance of charge-sheet). Whereas the third clause relates to restriction as regards venue of conduction of inquiry which is irrelevant to the issue involved herein. 4.3 What is noteworthy in Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules is that if a competent authority wants to issue a charge-sheet against a retired government servant then it has to satisfy the test laid down in all the three clauses of Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules. Non-satisfaction of even a single clause among the three under Rule 9(2)(b) would vitiate the initiation/conduction of inquiry against a retired government servant. 4.4 Reverting to the factual matrix attending the instant case as enumerated in tabular form (supra), it is vivid that the impugned charge-sheet initiated against petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 relates to the alleged misconduct committed by them during their tenure of 1-4-2007 to 17-6-2015, 18-6-2015 to 31-3-2017 and 1-4-2007 to 12-10-2010 qua petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3, respectively. 4.5 Undoubtedly, the charge-sheet against all the three petitioners was issued on 29-6-2021. Thus, the said charge-sheet against petitioner No. 1 was issued in respect of an event which took place about six years back. Similarly, the charge-sheet issued against petitioner No. 2 relates to event which took place about four years and three months prior to issuance. Lastly, in regard to petitioner No. 3, the charge-sheet was issued after nearly 10-11 years of the event which gave rise to the charges alleged. 4.6 Accordingly, prima facie, it appears that the alleged charge-sheet dated 29-6-2021 in respect of all the three petitioners was issued in respect of event which took place more than four years before the institution of disciplinary proceeding. RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS : 5. 4.6 Accordingly, prima facie, it appears that the alleged charge-sheet dated 29-6-2021 in respect of all the three petitioners was issued in respect of event which took place more than four years before the institution of disciplinary proceeding. RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS : 5. Per contra, respondents submitted a reply justifying the issuance of impugned charge-sheet on the ground that under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Pension Rules, the sanction from the Governor has been obtained and; therefore, even if the impugned charge-sheet is issued in respect of an event which took place more than four years before its issuance, the same is immune from judicial review. FINDINGS 6. A close scrutiny of Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules reveals that the bar contained in clause (ii) stands and operates independent of the bar contained in clause (i). Thus, notwithstanding the competent authority having obtained sanction of the Governor, the issuance of charge-sheet is in respect of an event which took place more than four years before its issuance, is still prohibited on the anvil of bar contained in clause (ii) of Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules. 6.1 Pertinently, each of the two prohibitory clauses i.e. clause (i) and (ii) of Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules are not joined by ‘or’. This means that for issuance of charge-sheet against retired public servant, both the said clauses ought to be satisfied for conduction of a valid and lawful disciplinary proceedings qua misconduct pertaining to an event which took place more than four years before such issuance. CONCLUSION 7. From the above discussion, what comes out loud and clear is that the impugned charge-sheet dated 29-6-2021 contained in Annexure R/1 issued against all the three petitioners are hit by statutory bar contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Pension Rules. 8. Consequently, petition stands allowed to the following extent : (i) The impugned charge-sheet dated 29-6-2021 issued by respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P/2 against all the three petitioners is quashed; (ii) Respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable to be saddled with exemplary cost for having compelled the petitioners to initiate this avoidable piece of litigation in the evening of their life and correspondingly wasting precious time of this Court in deciding this petition. (iii) Each of the three petitioners are entitled to cost of Rs. (iii) Each of the three petitioners are entitled to cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be digitally transfer in their bank account within a period of 60 days; (iv) Additional cost of Rs. 10,000/- is saddled upon respondent No. 1 and 2 for wasting precious time of the Court which could have been utilized for hearing and deciding more pressing matters. Let cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid in favour of Secretary, M. P. State Legal Services Authority. The MPSLSA shall donate this amount to the Permanent Artificial Organ Transplantation Centre, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur. (v) The aforesaid cost (in iii and iv) be paid within 60 days from today, failing which matter be listed before this Court as PUD qua cost.