Judgment :- 1. These cases have been referred to a Division Bench by a learned judge of this Court stating that it was contended before him that all the questions raised in these cases have not been dealt with by the Full Bench in Xavier v. Kerala State Electricity Board (1979 KLT. 80). Before us Counsel disowned having raised any such contention; and even if such a contention had been raised, we are unable to follow its effect and were not enlightened on that aspect. 2. O.P. No. 4242 of 1978. This original petition is to quash Ext. P3 order of the Government rejecting the petitioner's request to drop the disciplinary action against him, and Ext. P4 summons issued to the petitioner by the Enquiry Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings calling upon him to attend the office of the Tribunal to answer a charge against him. The petitioner, was a Conservator of Forests, against whom certain charges of irregularity and misconduct were framed in pursuance of the findings of the Justice Eradi Commission. The charge memo was dated 4177. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence dated 30-7-1977. The Government passed Ext. P1 G.O. dated 1191978 stating that the charge has to be proceeded with, by an enquiry under the Kerala Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) R.1960. Meanwhile the petitioner had retired on 317 1977. In answer to Ext. P1, the petitioner sent Ex. P2 explanation which was rejected by Ext. P3. Then followed Ext. P4. 3. The petitioner's case is that there is no power in the Government to continue the disciplinary proceedings after his retirement. On that basis he sought to quash Exts. P1, P3 and P4. Ext. P1 is dated 1I-94978. It has set out the charges against the petitioner and in Para.2 has expressly noticed that as the petitioner had retired from the service the disciplinary proceedings against him would be deemed to be under R.3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. Ex. P1 also recited as item No. 2 therein the memo of charge dated 411977. It is clear from Ext. P1 that the disciplinary proceedings originally started as a full-fledged one against the petitioner, were, since his retirement, treated as proceedings limited in scope and content to what is provided for by Part III of R.3 of the Kerala Service Rules. The said rule may well be quoted. "3. It is clear from Ext. P1 that the disciplinary proceedings originally started as a full-fledged one against the petitioner, were, since his retirement, treated as proceedings limited in scope and content to what is provided for by Part III of R.3 of the Kerala Service Rules. The said rule may well be quoted. "3. The 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 in a departmental or judicial proceeding, 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 (a) such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the employee, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service; (b) such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government; (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 Government 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 employee during his service; (c) no such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the employee 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 an event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (b) the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation : For the purpose of this rule (a) a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the employee or pensioner or if the employee has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted (i) in the case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint. or report of police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and (ii) in the case of a civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the court. Note: As soon as proceeding of the nature referred to in this rule are instituted the authority which institutes such proceedings should without delay intimate the fact to the Audit Officer. The amount of pension withheld under this rule should not ordinarily exceed one third of the pension originally sanctioned. In fixing the amount of pension to be so withheld, regard should be had to the consideration whether the amount of the pension left to the pensioner in any case would be adequate for his maintenance. Note (2) : The word 'pension' used in this rule does not include death-cum-retirement gratuity. Liabilities fixed against an employee can be recovered from the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to him without the department judicial proceedings referred to in this rule but after giving the employee concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain." Ext. P3 is the Government's reply to the petitioner's request to drop the action. In declining the request it was pointed out that the disciplinary proceedings started before his retirement could be continued under R.3 of Part III of the K. S. R. 4. The scope of the rule and the continuance of disciplinary proceeding after retirement fell for examination recently before a Full Bench of this Court in Xavier v. Kerala State Electricity Board (1979 KLT. 80). Speaking for the Full Bench I observed: "The Rule does not authorise the continuance of disciplinary proceedings as such, against a Government Servant after his retirement. Both on principle and on authority, such a position cannot be easily countenanced. 80). Speaking for the Full Bench I observed: "The Rule does not authorise the continuance of disciplinary proceedings as such, against a Government Servant after his retirement. Both on principle and on authority, such a position cannot be easily countenanced. It allows only a limited type of enquiry to be proceeded with, namely, an enquiry in regard to withholding or withdrawing pension, or of ordering recovery from pension by reason of any misconduct or negligence during the period in service of the employee. Under clause (a) of the proviso to the Rule, the departmental proceeding, if instituted during the service of the employee is to be deemed to be a proceeding under the Rule and may be continued and completed even after his retirement. To this limited extent alone is provision made under the rule for continuance of a disciplinary enquiry beyond retirement. That too is by transmuting it by fiction to be an enquiry under the Rule. Beyond this, we cannot understand the rule as in any way permitting the authorities either to launch or to continue disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the employee. That would be destructive of the concept of relationship of employer and employee which has come to an end by reason of the retirement of the employee beyond which disciplinary control cannot extend." Petitioner's Counsel strongly relied on the above passage. We do not think it is of any assistance to him. All that is stressed by the passage is that after retirement the disciplinary proceedings as such cannot be continued against the Government servant. But disciplinary proceedings already initiated before retirement can well be continued for the limited purpose contemplated by R.3 Part III of the KSR. The transmutation is expressly contemplated by the rule itself. Clause (a) of the proviso to the Rule expressly provided for the proceedings initiated while the employee was in service being continued after his retirement in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service. That is what is applicable here, and what was pointed out by Ext. P1. In Ext. P3 again, the Government pointed out that the disciplinary proceedings, started as full-fledged proceedings, were being continued for the limited purpose and with the limited object of R.3 Part III of KSR. Ext. P4 summons issued by the Tribunal has to be read against this background. So understood, we see no ground to interfere. P1. In Ext. P3 again, the Government pointed out that the disciplinary proceedings, started as full-fledged proceedings, were being continued for the limited purpose and with the limited object of R.3 Part III of KSR. Ext. P4 summons issued by the Tribunal has to be read against this background. So understood, we see no ground to interfere. 5. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Somasekhara Menon v. State of Kerala (1978 KLT. 696) as being directly in his favour. A reading of the decision will show that the decision is of no assistance to the petitioner. In that case disciplinary proceedings had been started against the appellant, and by Ext. P3 order his explanation was rejected and a formal disciplinary enquiry was ordered under R.15(2) (b) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. In answer to Ext. P3 the petitioner had pointed out inter alia that he had retired, and was no longer not in service and that the proceedings cannot be continued. By Ext. P5 order the Government stated that the request to drop the proceedings cannot be allowed and that Ext. P3 order will stand. This was no doubt after pointing out that the continuance of disciplinary proceedings against retired employees is contemplated by Part III, R.3 of the K.S.R. In the circumstances the Division Bench rightly pointed out that what was ordered under Ext. P3 was the conduct of a formal disciplinary enquiry under R.15 of the Rules, and that the continuance of such enquiry against a retired officer is not warranted in law. This what was done by Ex. P5. Therefore Ext. P5 order was quashed in 1978 KLT. 696. 5. The position here is different. There is no such infirmity either in Exts. P1 or P3. On the other hand both these make it clear that the enquiry was being continued only for the limited purpose contemplated by R.3 Part III of K.S.R. The position thus taken up was correct. We dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. 6. O. P. No. 503 of 1979:- The facts in this case are that the charges were referred to the Tribunal on 26-2-1976 after examining the explanation of the petitioner. The Tribunal conducted and forwarded its report dated 2-11-1977. Meanwhile the petitioner had retired on 31-7-1977. He was served with Ext. 6. O. P. No. 503 of 1979:- The facts in this case are that the charges were referred to the Tribunal on 26-2-1976 after examining the explanation of the petitioner. The Tribunal conducted and forwarded its report dated 2-11-1977. Meanwhile the petitioner had retired on 31-7-1977. He was served with Ext. P1 notice where reference was made to the charges and the preliminary enquiry and to his retirement and to R.3 Part III of the KSR. It was recorded that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner will be deemed to be under R.3 of Part III of the K.S.R. The provisional decision to reduce his pension by Rs. 10/- was communicated to the petitioner. Ext. P2 was the explanation of the petitioner; and Ext. P3 is the order rejecting his explanation and giving effect to the provisional decision. Against the background of facts and circumstances, and in the light of the principles examined and discussed in the previous writ petition, (O. P. 4242 of 1978), we see no infirmity in the proceedings as such. For the limited purpose, the enquiry was kept alive; and the reduction of pension and withholding of pension or withdrawal of pension ordered against the petitioner was fully justified by the rule. We dismiss this writ petition with no order as to costs.