“8. A reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, quoted above, shows that the power to pass an order for recovery of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government is reserved only to the Governor and no other Authority. Sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 however, provides that if departmental proceedings were instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, all such departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be proceedings under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, after the final retirement of the Government servant and shall be continued and concluded by the Authority by which they were commenced, in the manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. Hence, if the Conservator of Forest was the Disciplinary Authority in the case of the original respondent and before the retirement of the original respondent from service on 31-8-1985, departmental proceedings have been initiated and charge-sheet has been issued on 22-8-1984 by the Conservator of Forest, the said departmental proceedings are deemed to be proceeding under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, even after retirement of the original respondent. The proviso of sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, however, makes it amply clear that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by the Authority subordinate to the Governor, that Authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor. In the present case, therefore, the Conservator of Forest having initiated the departmental proceedings, before the retirement of the original respondent, was only entitled to continue and complete the same and submit a report to the Governor regarding his findings in the departmental proceedings, but was not entitled to pass a final order for recovery of the loss of Rs.4,10,071.84 from the original respondent. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was right in quashing the order dated 1-6-1991 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Khandwa
