1. The petitioner was appointed as a Block Organizer in the Home Guards Department in 1963. He was promoted to the post of Platoon Commander in the Home Guards Department in March, 1977. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.5.1995. The pensionary and other terminal benefits were disbursed to the petitioner on his retirement. The petitioner has been drawing his pension regularly as and when it became due.

2. By order dated 27.3.2006, almost 11 years after his retirement, a recovery of Rs.51216/- was ordered to be made from the pension of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 27.3.2006. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.3.2006 in the instant writ petition.

4. The order dated 27.3.2006 has been passed on the foot of an alleged deficiency in the mobilization stock. The deficiency figure and the loss caused to the State exchequer was put at Rs. 51,216/-. This amount is sought to be recovered from the pension of the petitioner by order dated 27.03.2006.

5. Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of recovery dated 27.3.2006 is arbitrary and illegal. The order is beyond jurisdiction and has been passed in the teeth of the provisions of Article 351 (A) of the Civil Service Regulations (as applicable to the State of U.P.). He further contends that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. No departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner prior to the order of recovery. There was no loss to the State Government by any act of the petitioner. Moreover, the claim of the respondent authorities is highly delayed and has been raised almost 11 years after the alleged discrepancy occurred. The petitioner has been made a scape goat.

6. The learned standing counsel in opposition to the writ petition has submitted that any employee is liable to make good the loss caused to the State Government.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Certain facts relevant to the controversy are established beyond the pale of dispute. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.5.1995. The order of recovery was passed on 27 March 2006. The event which triggered the order of recovery, was an alleged deficiency in stock, related to the year 1995. No regular departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with law against petitioner, to calculate the loss allegedly caused to the State Government and to fix responsibility for the same. No sanction was obtained from the Governor to institute a departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

9. Article 351 (A) of the Civil Service Regulations governs and regulates the power of the State Government to recover any amount from the pension of a superannuated employee. Such amount can be recovered from the pension of an employee only if the employee during his service caused a loss to the State Government of a like amount by his act of misconduct or negligence. Article 351 (A) is extracted hereunder for ease of reference:

“351-A .- The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. Provided that

(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during reemployment.

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor;

(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct and in accordanc