The central legal point established is that departmental enquiries for retired employees must have the sanction of the Governor as mandated by Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

A.K. Mishra, J.

1. The State has come up in the present writ petition aggrieved by an order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Raipur whereby the application filed by a retired employee, T.N. Verma, has been allowed. The Tribunal has quashed the departmental enquiry instituted after retirement of the respondent No. 1 without sanction of the Governor and the pensionary benefits have been directed to be paid to the respondent No. 1.

2. The facts relevant for the decision of the petition are that, respondent No. 1 was posted at Gwalior in the capacity of Food Controller, Gwalior. He took over charge on 9-12-1992. While he was posted there, the 'Gwalior Mela' was organised. 100 M.T. of wheat was allotted for distribution by the Director of Food and Civil Supplies which was considered to be inadequate by the Collector. However, whatever wheat actually received i.e., 271.67 quintals was given in equal shares to two fair price shops for distribution and that was distributed by the fair price shops on 8-1-93 and 9-1-93. Subsequently, price increase order was issued which was received by the Food Controller on 11 -1 -93 in the evening and the Collector, Gwalior passed the order accordingly for compliance. By the time the order was received, the wheat and the flour were already distributed to the consumers. However, nothing happened thereafter and the respondent No. 1 T.N. Verma retired on July 31, 1994. 'No dues certificate' and 'No enquiry certificate' were issued by the Collector. Thereafter, all of a sudden after retirement, the respondent No. 1, instead of his retirement dues, received a charge-sheet on 17- 4-1995 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies and the retirement dues were withheld. The respondent No. 1 further submitted that owing to withholding of his retiral dues, he was unable to treat his wife properly and she died due to lack of proper treatment. After retirement from Gwalior, respondent No. 1 settled at Raipur and filed the application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Raipur after waiting for four months for his retiral dues having lost his wife in between.

3. The claim of the respondent No. 1 was contested by the petitioner/ State on the ground that the application is barred by limitation and was not maintainable before the Raipur Bench of the Tribunal. The remedy of the petitioner was to approach the State Administrative Tribunal at Gwalior or Bhopal and since the charge-sheet has been issued the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to settlement of his retiral dues and pension and against the final order, if any, passed in the departmental enquiry, remedy of appeal is available to the respondent No. 1. Hence the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to any relief. The Tribunal has quashed the departmental enquiry and directed to settle the retiral dues together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

4. Learned counsel for the State has assailed the order of the Tribunal in the present writ petition on the ground that Bench of the Tribunal at Raipur had no territorial jurisdiction to interfere with the matter. It is also submitted that the application was barred by limitation having been filed in the year 1998 and the Tribunal ought not to have interfered at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet and ought to have waited for conclusion of departmental enquiry pending against the respondent No. 1.

5. We find no merit in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel was unable to point out that before initiating the departmental enquiry sanction of the Governor was obtained as mandated by the provisions of Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. It is transparent from bare reading of Rule 9 (2) (b) that departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor. The second