1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India prays for the following reliefs:

¼7-1½ fiVh'kuj }kjk izLrqr orZeku fjV fiVh'ku Lohdkj djrs gq,] fookfnr vkns'k fnukad 2-1-2018] 20-11-2017 ,oa 9-6-2017 vusXtj ih-1 lhjht mlls vU; izfrdwy vkns'k tks fookfnr vkns'kksa ls mRiUu gq, gkas] dks fujLr@vikLr djrs gq, foHkkxh; izkfËkdkfj;ksa@fjLiksUMsUV~l dks vknsf'kr@funsZf'kr djus dh d`ik djsa fd fiVh'kuj lsokfuo`fÙk ds mijkar feyus Lohd`r ,oa vuqeksfnr ekfld isU'ku eas ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dh olwyh ugha djsa ,oa isU'ku esa ls olwy dh xbZ jkf'k dks fuèkkZfjr C;kt lfgr fiVh'kuj dks okfil iznku djsaA

¼7-2½ fiVh'kuj ds lsokfgr ykHkksa isU'ku esa ls ;fn dksbZ olwyh fd, tkus ds vkns'k@funsZ'k lssokiqfLrdk esa vk{ksi ¼vkifRr½ tks fd fiVh'kuj ds fo#) gksa fujLr@vikLr fd, tkus dh —ik djsaA

¼7-3½ vU; mfpr fjV] vknasa'k vFkok funsZ'k U;k; fgr esa fiVh'kuj ds i{k esa tkjh djus dh Ñik djsa] izdj.k O;; fjLiksUMsUV~l ls fnyk, tkus dh d`ik djsaAß

2. Bare facts giving rise to the present case are that challenge was made to recovery of amount of Rs. 4,52,440/- from pensionary benefits of petitioner who on attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2011 from the post of Librarian at Government Govind College, Sevda, District Datia.

3. The ground taken by the petitioner in support of the challenge to the recovery is that the impugned recovery is being made without any authority of law as neither rule 9 nor rule 66 of M.P. Civil Service (Pension Rules), 1976 empowers any of the respondents to make recovery after retirement which is sought to be made.

4. The reply filed by the State reveals that on an objection taken by University Grant Commission that certain amount released by the Commission in favour of the Collage under certain heads was not utilized for the purpose for which it was meant, but was diverted and used to some other purposes on the behest of the petitioner who happened to be the Librarian of the College. The said amount related to the financial year 2009-2010.

5. Petitioner was allowed to retire on 31.10.2011 and started receiving regular pension and also the related, peansionary benefits. As late as in the year 2017, memo dated 18.1.2017 (Annexure R/2) was issued addressing inter alia to the petitioner asking the petitioner to explain as to why the recovery of an amount Rs. 8,60,852/- be not made from him. Reply to the said communication was filed by petitioner as alleged but the same is not on record. Thereafter, recovery order (Annexure P/1) was passed by respondents State Bank of India being the disbursing authority which was based on direction of the sanctioning authority i.e. Treasury Officer, Sevda, District Datia dated 17.11.2017. The State Bank of India was directed to make recovery from the pension of the petitioner @ Rs. 21,800/- per month to ensure recovery of total amount of Rs. 4,52,440/-.

6. The return filed by the State justifies the recovery by attributing the same to objection taken by the UGC about the unlawful diversion of the fund from one head to the other without prior permission. The return further discloses that instead of taking disciplinary action, the course of making recovery was adopted by reserving the right to take further appropriate action.

7. The return of the State is silent about any enabling legal provision which empowers the State to make the impugned recovery after 6-7 years of retirement.

8. The only provision which can be invoked by the respondents/State is provided in rule 9 which empowers the Governor to initiate disciplinary proceeding for grave misconduct for making recovery after retirement, provided the disciplinary proceedings are initiated before expiry of 4 years from the date of retirement in respect of a misconduct which occurred prior to retirement.

9. Relevant rule 9 of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 is reproduced below for convenience and ready reference:

"9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension.- (1) The Governor reserves to himself the right