By the Court.—Petitioner before Court seeks quashing of the charge-sheet dated 27.6.2011 issued by the Enquiry Officer under letter dated 28.7.2011 with the approval of the Principal Secretary, Rural Engineering Services. Petitioner has prayed for payment of his entire retiral dues alongwith interest.

2. Facts in short leading to the petition are as follows :

Petitioner before this Court was employed as Assistant Engineering in the Rural Engineering Department of the State of U.P. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.9.2008. After more than three years of his retirement, a charge-sheet dated 27.6.2011 has been served upon the petitioner alongwith covering letter dated 28.7.2011. The charge-sheet has been signed by the Junior Engineer (Western Region) Rural Engineering Department in his capacity as Enquiry Officer. It is his case that in view of Regulation 351-A read with 370 of Civil Services Regulations, departmental enquiry against the petitioner cannot be instituted/continued without the sanction of the Governor. In the facts of the case, no sanction from the Governor has been obtained, the charge-sheet after more than three years subsequent to his retirement is bad.

3. On behalf of the respondent authorities a counter-affidavit has been filed and it has been stated in paragraph 9 that before initiating the departmental proceedings against the petitioner with the service of charge-sheet dated 27.6.2011, approval of the minister of the department had been obtained on 7.1.2011 and this according to the respondents would be deemed to be the sanction referred to under Article 351-A of the Governor having regard to the provisions of the U.P. Secretariat Instructions 1982 framed under the Rules of Business, 1975.

4. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Kanhu Charan Majhi, (2014) 1 SCC 156, specifically paragraph 12.

5. On behalf of the petitioner in rejoinder-affidavit it is submitted that the judgment is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the case having regard to the specific language of Civil Services Regulations which have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, therefore, statutory in nature. The Rules of Business, 1975 have been framed under Article 156 of the Constitution of India and they deals with the executive decisions of the State Government which are completely foreign to the service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present petition.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had retired in the year 2008 and that departmental proceedings have been initiated against him in the year 2011 i.e. after expiry of three years subsequent to his retirement. It is also not in dispute that under Regulations 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for any departmental enquiry being initiated against a retired employee, prior sanction of the Governor is but necessary. The issue in that regard has been settled by the High Court in the case of State of U.P. v. R.C. Mishra, 2007(2) UPLBEC 1329, wherein Regulation 351-A had been taken note of. It has been laid down that once the Government servant has retired and no proceedings have been earlier initiated then the limitations imposed by sub clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of proviso to Regulation 351-A will apply.

8. We may also record that under Explanation A to Article 351-A, it has been explained that the departmental proceedings against a retired employee shall be deemed to have been instituted when a charge framed against the person concerned is issued to him.

9. It is therefore, clear that as per Regulations 351-A of Civil Services Regulations, the departmental enquiry would be deemed to have been instituted on the date charge-sheet is served upon the petitioner i.e. in the year 20