By the Court.—We have heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Pradeep Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents.

2. The petitioner, who happens to be retired Chief Engineer, Kanpur Development Authority, has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order of Joint Secretary (Personnel), Kanpur Development Authority dated 3.3.2011, order of Enquiry Officer dated 22.2.2011 and the order of State Government dated 29.9.2010 (Annexures 3, 4 and 5 to the writ petition).

3. vide order dated 29.9.2010, Joint Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department has required the Vice Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority to prepare a charge-sheet for the misdeeds of the petitioner, due to which financial loss has occurred to the Development Authority, in order to recover the loss in view of provisions contained under Regulation 351A of Civil Services Regulation. vide order dated 22.2.2011, the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur has sent a copy of charge-sheet to the Vice Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority for affecting the service of charge-sheet upon the petitioner with the request that after service of charge-sheet upon the petitioner, it be made available to his office alongwith his signature on second copy whereas vide order dated 3.3.2011, Joint Secretary (Personnel), Kanpur Development Authority has sent a copy of the charge-sheet to the petitioner.

4. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner while serving as Chief Engineer in Kanpur Development Authority, retired on 30.6.2010. After his retirement, the charge-sheet in question has been served upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid charge-sheet and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. While assailing the aforesaid orders and the enquiry proceeding itself Sri Bhushan, who appears for the petitioner, has submitted that the proceeding under 351A of Regulations can be initiated only against an employee who is holding a pensionable post and if the employee concerned is not holding a pensionable post, in that eventuality, the provisions contained in Regulation 351A cannot be invoked. In his submissions, on the date, when the petitioner retired, the post of Chief Engineer, Development Authority was not pensionable, therefore, no enquiry could be initiated against him. Further more, no sanction for initiating enquiry could be accorded by the Hon’ble Governor. In his further submissions, in the present case, although later on a Rule known as Uttar Pradesh Vikas Pradhikaran Kendrit Sewa Nivriti Labh Niymawali has came into force w.e.f. 11.11.2011 (herein after referred as the ‘Rule’). This Rule was made while exercising the power vested in Section 5A(1) read with Section 55 of the Act, which was made effective with immediate effect i.e. w.e.f. 11.11.2011. The submission is that the charge-sheet was framed and served upon the petitioner through letter dated 3.11.2011, before the commencement of Rule of 2011. Therefore, in view of law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and another v. Public Services Tribunal and others, 2008(2) ADJ 11 (DB), Allahabad, no disciplinary proceeding could be initiated against a retired employee.

6. Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel appearing for Kanpur Development Authority have submitted that Rule 2011 has retrospective effect and it will cover all retired employee of the Development Authority therefore the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law as for all practical purposes, the post would be pensionable even since the date when the petitioner has retired. They have also submitted that the order dated 29.9.2010 is not a sanction order and without there being an order of sanction, the writ petition is not maintainable.

7. For appreciating the controversy, we f