( 1 ) THIS petition filed by Harihar Bhole Nath Misra challenging the judgment and order dated 18. 1. 2002 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal rejecting the claim petition of the petitioner against the order of punishment passed under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services regulations.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was inducted in the government service as Routine Grade Clerk in the office of the Inspector General of Registration, U. P. on 4. 1. 1958. On promotion being granted from time to time, he retired from the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration which post he was holding since 1. 1. 1985, on 31. 3. 1993 on reaching the age of superannuation.

( 3 ) PRIOR to his retirement on 31. 3. 1993, he was suspended on the charge of causing loss of revenue to the Department vide order dated 24. 3. 1993 and a charge-sheet of the same date was also issued to the petitioner levelling a charge with respect to under-valuation of the 12 sale deeds. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension by means of a writ petition, operation of which was stayed by this Court vide order dated 30. 3. 1993. The petitioner however, submitted a detailed reply to all the charges levelled against the petitioner, on 11. 11. 1994. The second reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 4. 9. 1998, though final inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer on 4. 1. 1997 which was served upon the petitioner on 19. 11. 1998. The punishment order dated 7. 1. 2000 was passed imposing forfeiture of the entire pension and gratuity and also recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,02,279. 50 by first adjusting it from the pension payable and the gratuity payable and rest of the amount to be realised from the movable and immovable properties of the petitioner by filing a civil suit.

( 4 ) TO cut the controversy short, suffice would be to mention that the petitioner apart from raising various other grounds for attributing illegality and arbitrariness in the departmental proceedings and also in the award of punishment specifically took the plea before the State Public Services tribunal that the petitioner since retired on 31. 3. 1993, no disciplinary proceedings could have been continued after the retirement of the petitioner without taking prior sanction of the governor under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations and that the same having not been done, the entire proceedings are vitiated and consequently the order of punishment can also not be sustained. This plea has been taken in paragraph 4. 27 of the claim petition.

( 5 ) THE State Government filed a written statement before the Tribunal wherein the said plea was not controverted rather in paragraph 10 of the written statement, reply to the averments made in paragraph 4. 27 was given but this fact was not disputed. The Tribunal however, dismissed the claim petition after recording the finding that since the order of punishment has been passed by the Governor with the approval of the Public Services Commission which is evident from the punishment order itself, therefore, it presumes that the Governor had granted sanction for the continuance of the proceedings under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations after retirement. On the aforesaid findings, the claim petition was dismissed.

( 6 ) IN the writ petition preferred by the petitioner, again a specific plea has been taken in paragraph 40 that Governor of U. P. , did not pass any order under Regulation 351-A for continuing the enquiry after his retirement nor at any point of time, either before the petitioners retirement from service w. e. f. 31. 3. 1993 or thereafter till passing of the impugned order dated 7. 1. 2000, passed any order directing that proceedings were to be taken under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations.

( 7 ) THE aforesaid paragraph has been replied in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit which contains a combined answer to paragraphs 26 to 42 of the writ petition, but in this rep