By the Court.—The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sales Tax Officer in the Trade Tax Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is stated that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and actually retired on 31-1-01. On 18th January, 2002, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet bearing the date as 29th December, 2001. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner made an application dated 20th September, 2002 stating therein that the enquiry proceedings were liable to be revoked.

2. However, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner were continued and on 15/16th January, 2003 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with an enquiry report dated 8th March, 2002. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 18th January, 2003 to the second show cause notice and vide letter dated 5th April, 2003, he has requested for revocation of the entire proceedings.

3. By means of the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2005 the petitioner has been informed that the Governor of U.P. in exercise of powers under Article 351-A of Civil Services Rules has been pleased to grant permission for continuation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, even after his retirement. It is against this order and for quashing the departmental proceedings that this petition has been filed.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that permission to continue the disciplinary proceedings under Article 351-A of Civil Services Rules against a government servant can be granted by the Governor only in respect of an incident which has taken place not more than four years prior to the date of retirement of the government servant. He clarifies that having regard to the date of retirement i.e. 31st January, 2001 and the date on which the Governor is said to have granted the permission, as communicated under letter dated 22nd November, 2005, it is apparently clear that this prescribed period of four years has expired in between. In the alternative he submits that under explanation to Article 351-A of the Civil Services Rules, the departmental proceedings are said to have been initiated on the service of the charge-sheet. The service of the charge-sheet itself had been affected upon the petitioner subsequent to his retirement i.e. 31st January, 2001 to be precise on 18th January, 2002 only and that to without there being any approval of the Governor of the State as required under Article 351-A of Civil Services Rules. Therefore, the entire departmental proceedings are vitiated and are liable to be quashed by this Court.

5. Learned Standing Counsel in reply submits that permission to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was obtained from the Minister concerned in accordance with the Business Regulation on 11-1-01, this sanction of the Minister is deemed to be on behalf of the Governor, in view of the Business Rules/Regulation, no further permission from the Governor in the facts of the case was required. It is, therefore, submitted that the letter dated 22nd November, 2005 is superfluous and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner do not warrant any interference. Reliance for the purpose has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 1 UPLBEC 56, State of U.P. and others v. Harihar Bhole Nath.

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.

7. In view of the facts, as noted herein above, it is apparent that the petitioner has been served with the charge-sheet subsequent to his retirement without there being an order of the Governor permitting the initiation of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. It is further established that on the date, the Governor is stated to have granted the permission under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations i.e. 22-11-2005 the period of more than four years after retirement of the petitioner had already lapsed.

8. Conseq