1) Rule. Heard forthwith.

2) The petitioner had joined as Bailiff in the District Court at Jalna. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Clerk and has rendered 25 years of service. The petitioner was transferred to the Jafrabad Court at Jalna district on 7.6.2004. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement and was allowed to retire w.e.f. 6.9.2004 by order dated 30.8.2004. The petitioner on 27.9.2004thereafter submitted an application for withdrawal of the notice of voluntary retirement. That was rejected on 29.9.2004.

2) After his retirement, show cause notice, as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated, was served on the petitioner on 5.10.2004. That was based on a report of the JMFC, Jafrabad dated 1.9.2004 which was received in the office of District Judge on 3.9.2004.A consideration of the charge sheet which has been filed prima facie indicates that the charges are in respect of absentism and failure to take charge of muddemal and record section in his new posting at Jafrabad Court. From the record one finds that before acceptance of the application made by the petitioner for voluntary retirement, the petitioner was granted leave . For the period w.e.f. 24.7.2004 to 5.9.2004, post facto sanction was granted by order dated 30th August, 2004. Subsequent to the show cause notice, an enquiry was conducted, pursuant to which an order was passed, withholding 10% of his total admissible pension till 5.9.2011. An administrative appeal had been preferred and that appeal was disposed of on 1.12.2007. It is these orders which are the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3) The case of the petitioner is that the entire proceedings are vitiated as no permission of the Government was taken to initiate the proceedings subsequent to the retirement. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, which hereinafter shall be referred to as Pension Rules. Considering that contention, we had asked the respondents by our order dated 26.8.2008 to reply to the said contention.

4) A reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 and 2. In so far as contention as regards not taking permission, it is sought to be explained in para 7 that though the petitioner was allowed to retire from 6.9.2004, a report dated 1.9.2004 had been received on 3.9.2004 that is before the date of retirement and in these circumstances, the permission from the Government not taken. We do not propose to go into the merits of the matter, except, as already pointed out, leave in respect of the periods in respect of which most of the charges have been framed had been sanctioned from time to time by the Sanctioning Authority.

5) The real controversy in issue is whether the departmental proceedings could have been sanctioned without sanction of the State Government ? Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of the Pension Rules reads as under : "27(2)(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 Government." . The petitioner, admittedly, was allowed to retire from service w.e.f. 6.9.2004 by the communication of 30th August, 2004. The show cause notice was issued only on 5.10.2004. Merely because the attention of the Disciplinary Authority was invited to certain acts, may be amounting to misconduct, will not result in initiation of disciplinary proceedings without previous approval. It is only in the event disciplinary proceedings were initiated before an employee retires, would the provisions of Rule 27 (2)(b)(i) of the Pension Rules be inapplicable. As to when departmental proceedings can be said to be initiated, we may gainfully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.Sta