Post-retirement recovery requires Governor's sanction and fresh disciplinary proceedings, not mere reliance on fact-finding inquiries.

The petitioner, a retired Principal, challenged a recovery order for approx. ₹11 lakhs regarding alleged Mid-Day Meal fund embezzlement.

In a previous round of litigation (Writ-A No. 9948 of 2023), the Court set aside a prior recovery order because no departmental inquiry was pending at retirement and Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR) was not followed.

The Court then granted liberty to recover the amount only if permissible under "due process of law".

Subsequently, the District Basic Education Officer sought permission under Article 351-A from the State Government.

The Special Secretary (State) issued a letter dated 07.11.2025 directing recovery based on the original fact-finding inquiry.

Consequently, recovery orders were issued against the petitioner's pension without initiating a fresh post-retirement departmental inquiry or charge sheet.

Whether the State Government’s letter dated 07.11.2025 constitutes valid legal permission from the Governor as mandated under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations.

Whether a recovery order can be passed against a retired employee solely based on a pre-retirement fact-finding inquiry without conducting a fresh formal disciplinary proceeding.

The Court applied Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, which stipulates that the Governor reserves the right to withhold/withdraw pension or order recovery for pecuniary loss if the pensioner is found guilty in departmental or judicial proceedings.

Key procedural safeguards under this provision include: (a) departmental proceedings not instituted during service require the sanction of the Governor for post-retirement initiation; and (b) such proceedings must relate to events occurring within four years of initiation.

The Court further relied on the principle that a fact-finding inquiry is not a substitute for a formal disciplinary proceeding (charge sheet and inquiry) required for recovery post-retirement.

The Court reasoned that "due process" necessitated two distinct steps: obtaining valid Gubernatorial sanction under Article 351-A and the subsequent initiation of a fresh disciplinary proceeding through a charge sheet.

The court found that the State’s letter dated 07.11.2025 did not reflect that the permission was granted by the Governor, rendering the sanction legally deficient.

The respondents erred by treating the earlier fact-finding report as a final determination of guilt.

The Court clarified that such a report can only serve as the basis to seek permission to start an inquiry, not as the final inquiry itself.

Since no fresh charge sheet was issued and no formal proceedings were concluded post-sanction, the recovery was held to be a violation of natural justice and the Court’s previous directions.

It held that in the absence of valid sanction from the Governor and the subsequent failure to conduct a formal disciplinary proceeding, the recovery was unsustainable.

Given the gravity of the embezzlement allegations (₹11 lakhs), the Court granted the respondents liberty to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with Article 351-A CSR by obtaining proper Gubernatorial permission and conducting a fresh inquiry as per law.