WP(C) 5733/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mrs RB Bora, the learned counsel for the petitioner also heard Mr BN Gogoi, the learned State counsel. The petitioner, who is implicated in the notorious LOC Scam Case, is kno cking at the door of this Court once again to prevent the respondent authorities from proceeding against him in the ongoing departmental enquiry. His grievance in this case is confined to the legality of the letter issued by the Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Assam under Rule 9 of the Assam Ser vices (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964 to show cause as to why major penalt ies should not be inflicted upon him for the charges leveled against him connect ed therein. The petitioner is basically charged with misappropriation of a cons iderable sum of money belonging to the Government while he was functioning as Ac countant in the office of the O/C, ICDP, Tezpur. Mrs R B Bora, the learned coun sel for the petitioner, submits that as the petitioner was compulsorily retired on 06.06.1995, the respondent authorities are barred by Rule 21(b)(i) and (ii) o f the Assam Services (Pension)Rules, 1969 from holding a departmental enquiry an d the impugned letter dated 20.02.2011 cannot, therefore, be sustained in law a nd is liable to be quashed. Mr BN Gogoi, the learned GA, however, supports the impugned letter and contends that no interference is called for, moreso, when th e petitioner is involved in LOC scam case amounting to crores of public money. There is no dispute at the bar that the petitioner was compulsorily retired with effect from 6.6.1995 apparently for his involvement in the LOC scam case and th at the impugned letter was issued on 20.02.2001 i.e. almost six years after his compulsory retirement from service. Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rul es, 1969 deals with the power of the State respondents, among others, a departme ntal proceeding to be initiated against the Government employee after his retire ment. Rule 21(b)(i) and (ii) provide that a departmental proceeding, if not ins tituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or durin g his re-employment shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Govern or of Assam and that such a departmental proceeding shall not be in respect of a ny event which took place more than four years before such institution. A conjo int reading of these two provisions will plainly show that a departmental procee ding if it is being instituted after the retirement or during the re-employment of the officer concerned can be instituted after obtaining the sanction of the G overnor of Assam and that such departmental proceeding cannot at all be institut ed in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such ins titution. In my opinion, there is no room for doubt on the meaning of these pro visions : the language used therein is simple and does not need any interpretati on. In the instant case, on the admitted position of the parties, it is crystal clear that the sanction of the Governor was never obtained for institution of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner who had compulsorily retired as early as 6.6.1995. It is also obvious that a departmental proceeding contemplat ed against the petitioner by the impugned letter is for the event which had take n place more than four years before the contemplated departmental proceeding. T he memorandum of charges issued to the petitioner is also found in the impugned letter. Looking at the matter from all angles, it is absolutely clear that the impugned letter contravenes the provisions of Rule 21(i) and (ii) of the Assam S ervices (Pension) Rules, 1969. The impugned letter, therefore, does not have an y leg to stand on and is accordingly liable to be quashed. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned letter dated 20.02.2011 (Annexure 19 to the writ petition) is here by quashed. No order as to cost.