JUDGMENT V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 1. The respondents in these appeals were employed in the Forest Department of the Government of Kerala. The respondent in W.A. No. 99 of 1964, retired on 22nd June 1960 and the respondent in W.A No. 100 of 1964 retired on 8th February 1962. 2. There was a Departmental Enquiry against Shri S. Venkiteswaran who was the Chief Conservator of Forests, by Shri G. Kumara Piliai who was a Judge of this Court. In the course of the report, it was observed that the respondents in these writ appeals and two others had failed in the proper discharge of their duties, in so far as they had not checked and scrutinised the names of the boundaries given in the agreement for working down of timber from a forest area in Kottayam District. It was suggested that a thorough investigation into their conduct should be made. A detailed investigation by the X-Branch Police followed, and action under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was proposed to be taken against these respondents; but for reasons which it is unnecessary to notice, the said proceedings did not materialise. The entire amount of the pension due to the respondent in W.A. No. 99 of 1964 was withheld by the Government by proceedings dated 22nd June 1960 and the said order was later on modified by proceedings dated 25th January 1961 by which one half of the pension alone was withheld. By a separate order the pension due to the respondent in W. A. No, 100 of 1964 was also similarly withheld. Against the order withholding half his pension, the respondent in W.A. No. 99 of 1964 filed 0. P. No. 687 of 1961 before this Court. This Court quashed the order on the ground that the enquiry proceedings in contemplation of which the order was issued, had not yet started, and that it was unfair to withhold the legitimate right to emoluments by way of pension as on the date of superannuation. It was made clear in the said judgment that the Government would be free to take appropriate action according to law. Accordingly, the Government passed the proceedings dated 13th November 1962 (Ex. P-3) under rule 67 of Chapter V, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. It was made clear in the said judgment that the Government would be free to take appropriate action according to law. Accordingly, the Government passed the proceedings dated 13th November 1962 (Ex. P-3) under rule 67 of Chapter V, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. By the said order, while extending the benefit of the judgment in O. P. No. 687 of 1961 to all the officers affected, the Government directed that the pension admissible to the respondents in these appeals and one other officer should be reduced by one-fourth. To quash the said order, the respondents in these appeals filed O.P. Nos. 349 and 523 of 1963, which were allowed by our learned brother Govindan Nair, J. These appeals have been filed against the order of the learned Judge. 3. Before the learned Judge, and before us, two grounds were urged to quash Ex. P-3 ; (1) that the order in question was really passed under Rule 3 of Chapter I, Part III of Kerala Service Rules, without complying, with the requirements of the said Rule and was therefore bad; and (2) that even if the action was under Rule 67, it was vitiated by non-conformity with the principles of natural justice, as the respondents were denied any opportunity of showing cause against the action taken against them. The learned Judge accepted the first of these contentions, but expressed no final opinion as to the second. 4. Rule 3 of Chapter I, Part III, (in so far as it is material) and Rule 67 of Chapter V, Part III, of the Kerala Service Rules, as they stood at the relevant time, read as follows: "3.Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. * * * * * 67. Award of full pension. ”(a) The full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. * * * * * 67. Award of full pension. ”(a) The full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pensions should make such reduction in the amounts as it thinks proper. Note 1. ”Whenever an order reducing the pension of an officer is passed, the officer affected shall have a right of appeal to the authority to whom an appeal from an order of dismissal or removal lies. ' Note 2. ”This rule does not operate to authorise a reduction of ordinary pension either to nothing or to a nominal amount. " From the context in which Rule 3 occurs, no less than from the content of the said rule, we are satisfied that the same can have no application to the cases of the respondents, and that the appropriate provision for taking action against them was Rule 67. There is sufficient indication in the Rule 3, that it contemplates proceedings against a person who had the status of a pensioner and whose pension was sought to be either withheld or withdrawn. Rule 67 seems to us to travel an altogether different region. We are of the view that resort could be had to Rule 67 before the matters relating to the payment of pension are finalised. In answer to a question put by us, it was frankly admitted by counsel for respondents in these appeals that the " departmental or judicial proceedings "referred to in Rule 3 should be against the pensioner, whose pension is sought to be affected. We agree with the said submission; and if so, this seems to furnish a second indication of the different spheres covered by Rule 3 and Rule 67. Whereas the Rule 3 can be resorted to only in the light of certain disclosures made by " departmental or judicial proceedings", the applicability of Rule 67 is not pre-conditioned by any such requirement. Admittedly there were no "departmental or judicial proceedings" against the respondents. Whichever way viewed, we are of opinion that the appropriate Rule to which resort should be had in these cases was Rule 67 arid not Rule 3. To that extent, state of Kerala we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learner] Judge. 5. Admittedly there were no "departmental or judicial proceedings" against the respondents. Whichever way viewed, we are of opinion that the appropriate Rule to which resort should be had in these cases was Rule 67 arid not Rule 3. To that extent, state of Kerala we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learner] Judge. 5. However, even if Rule 67 were to be applied against the respondents, as was done by the order Ex. P-3, we are of the view that the principles of natural justice require that the respondents should be afforded reasonable opportunity for explanation before action was taken against them. It should be noticed that the enquiry by Shri G. Kumara Pillai was not against the petitioners, and they were not parties to the enquiry. It is seen from Ex. P-3 that certain reports of the X-Branch Police against the petitioners were relied upon for passing the order Ex. P-3. It was admitted before us that neither the reports nor even their substance was made available at any stage to the respondents. 6. In Masali Guptan v. State of Kerala 1963 K.L.T. 1051, this Court observed: "An important question of administrative law is whether some principles of procedure are not so universal as to apply to all wielding of power, whether judicial or administrative. And the answer that the courts have given over the years is that even when an executive body is given the power to decide something in its discretion the courts would still keep it in the leading strings of fair procedure. " 7. It is refreshing to see that in G.O. (P) 820/64/ Fin., dated 22nd December 1964, the Government itself recognised the applicability of the principles of natural justice to proceedings under Rule 67 and ordered: "After careful consideration it has been decided that in such cases the person affected should be given an opportunity of being heard to satisfy the principles of natural justice ................ The orders will have effect from the date of issue. 8. It is hardly necessary for us to add that a date­-line for the applicability of the principles of natural justice cannot be fixed by the issuance of an executive fiat by the Government. 9. We are of opinion that the proceedings evidenced state of Kerala by Ex. P-3 are violative of the principles of natural justice and for that reason Ex. 9. We are of opinion that the proceedings evidenced state of Kerala by Ex. P-3 are violative of the principles of natural justice and for that reason Ex. P-3 is liable to be quashed. 10. It was represented by the learned Government Pleader that the Governments object in filing these appeals was to get an authoritative ruling delineating the spheres covered by Rule 3 and Rule 67 of the Kerala Service Rules above referred to. 11. In the result, we confirm the order of the learned Judge quashing Ex. P-3, although for a different reason. The appeals are dismissed; but, in the circumstances, without costs.