JUDGMENT
Rajan, J.
1. The appellant retired from the service of the first respondent on March 31, 1993. By Ext. P1 order dt. June 3, 1994 it was directed that departmental proceedings should be conducted against him for certain alleged gross misconduct committed by him while functioning as Traffic Manager.Ext. P2 memorandum of charges was also issued on the same date directing the appel lant to submit a written statement of defence. Thereafter, he filed Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent requesting to drop the enquiry initiated against him. By Ext.P5 order first respondent replied stating that the enquiry ordered was not bad in view of Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules(hereinafter referred to as (‘the Rules’). The appellant filed the original petition challenging the legality of the disciplinary proceedings taken against him and to declare that the disciplinary proceedings initiated after his retirement were illegal and without authority of law. The learned single Judge dismissed the original petition rejecting the contentions advanced by the appellant.
2. The counsel for the appellant Sri.G.D.Panicker advanced two arguments before us. The first argument was that the present enquiry related to an incident which happened beyond four years and secondly the first respondent had nojurisdiction to proceed against the appellant under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules. In order to understand the scope of the above argument, it is necessary to re-produce Rule 9 of the Rules:
“9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension: (1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:
Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy five per mensem.
2(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in Sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service:
Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President.
(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment,-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President,
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service.
(3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose, or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution.
(4) In such case of Government Servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under Sub-rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in Rule 69 shall be sanctioned.
(5) Where the President decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shal 1 not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one- third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government. servant.
(6) For the purpose of this rule,-
(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government Servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and
(b) Judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted-
(i) in the case of criminai proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of the police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and
(ii)in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court”.
The above rules reserve the right of withholding or withdrawing the pension of an employee and of ordering recovery from the pension of the whole or pan of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. The contention of the appellant is that the enquiry proposed as per Ext.P6 order was beyond the sanctioned period of four years and hence is without any authority. According to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii), the departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the rules states that for the purpose of this Rule departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. In the present case Ext.P2 dt. June 3, 1994 is the memorandum by which the statement of article of charge and the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the charge were served on the appellant. The article of charge and the statement of imputations were annexed along with Ext.P2 memorandum. The article of charge framed against the appellant stated that while functioning as Traffic Manager in the Cochin Port Trust during the period 1990-91 he committed grave misconduct, inasmuch as he in connivance with Sri. P.K.Raghavan, the then Deputy Traffic Manager in the Port Trust fabricated and altered the marks obtained in test and interview by the candidates for the post of Shore Labour in the Port Trust in the months of June-July 1990 with intent to favour candidates of his choice. The date of retirement of the appellant is March 31, 1993. The alleged incident on which the charge was framed related to the period June-July 1990. Therefore, it can never be contended that the alleged misconduct related to a period more than four years before the institution which is June 6,
1994. Therefore, the argument that the enquiry proposed is beyond the sanctioned period of 4 years fails and is rejected.
3. The next contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the first respondent has not sustained any loss due to the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the appellant and therefore, the first respondent had no legal right to withhold the pensionary benefits due to the appellant. But a careful and close reading of Rule 9(1) of the Rules will go to show that the right of the President to withhold or withdraw a pension does not depend upon any pecuniary loss caused to the Government Rule 9(1) of the Rules envisages two courses of action to be adopted against a pensioner The President has got a right to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof either permanently or for a specified period. The President has also got the power to order recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. Thus, it can be seen that only when the President orders recovery from a pension, the question of pecuniary loss caused to the Government is relevant material. In case of withholding or withdrawing a pension, it was not qualified by the existence of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. The above right of the President to withhold a pension or part thereof does not depend upon any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. If the authority is satisfied that the pecuniary loss was caused to the Government by the misconduct or negligence of the pensioner, then the authority can order recovery from a pension. We are fortified to take the above view on the basis of the recent Supreme Court ruling reported in State of Orissa v. Kalicharan Mohapatra and Anr. (1996-I- LLJ-945) wherein it was held that to take action against a retired employee, it is not necessary that the charges against the delinquent pensioner must relate to a charge of causing pecuniary loss to the Government by his negligence or misconduct during his service. In the above case, the Supreme Court was considering Rule 6 of All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules 1958. The above rule also empowers the Central Government to withhold or withdraw a pension and there is the right of ordering recovery from pension or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Central or State Government, if any pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or caused pecuniary loss to the Central or State Government. Therefore, we are clear in our mind that there need not be any express charge of causing pecuniary loss to the Government on account of the negligence or misconduct of the pensioner. Therefore, the first respondent was perfectlyjustitled in proceeding against the appellant under Rule 9 of the Rules. Under these circumstances, we hold that the learned Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the original petition.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.