Judgment Mohan, J.: The short facts loading to the writ appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India are as follows. The 1st respondent before us was the Deputy Manager of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called the Corporation). He was originally an employee of the Government of India in the Food Department. After the enactment of the Food Corporation of India Act, the employees who were working in the Food Department of the Government of India were transferred to the Corporation. Accordingly, the 1st respondent was also transferred to the Corporation. On 16-5-1974 he was posted as the Deputy Manager (Shipping) in the Office of the Joint Manager (P0) of the Corporation. He retired from service on superannuation on 11th May, 1975. 2. Just prior to the retirement of the 1st respondent, a memorandum of charge dated 2nd December, 1974 was issued to the 1st respondent by the Managing Director of the Corporation. The said memo stated that while the 1st respondent was functioning as Senior Assistant Manager had put up false and misleading notes and caused seven road movement orders to be passed by the Deputy Zonal Manager resulting in loss to the Corporation and the Government of India. By this, he had contravened Regulations 31 and 32 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations. The memo further stated that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him as provided for under Regulation 58. It was only after this the 1st respondent was retired on 11-5-1975 as aforesaid. On 5th July, 1975, a memorandum was issued to the 1st respondent informing him that one J.S.Arora, Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation and one A.Viswanathan, Inspector, Special Police Establishment to present the case of the Corporation against the 1st respondent before the Inquiring Authority. The 1st respondent thereupon on 24-7-1975 wrote a letter objecting to the conduct of the enquiry on the ground that inasmuch as he had retired from the service of the Corporation by superannuation, he ceased to be an employee of the Corporation and consequently no enquiry could be held against him. The first respondent further sent various letters to the appellant objecting to the proposed enquiry. The first respondent further sent various letters to the appellant objecting to the proposed enquiry. Finally, a memo dated 9th September, 1977 was received from the Corporation stating that as the 1st respondent had not made any valid ground for dropping the enquiry, he was called upon to participate in the enquiry. It was in those circumstances the 1st respondent filed a writ petition for the issue of certiorari to quash the memo dated 2nd December, 1974, issued by the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the Corporation that the 1st respondent having exercised the option to be governed by the pension rules with regard to (1) Leave (2) Provident Fund (3) Retirement and (4) other terminal benefits in accordance with the rules and orders of the Central Government, as amended from time to time, he is liable to be proceeded against under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned single Judge, Padmanabhan, J. was of the view that by this option it only meant the benefits available to the employees of the Corporation and not the disadvantages, like the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings beyond retirement. The further ground which prevailed with the learned single Judge was it was not the President of India who had taken the action. Lastly it was held that inasmuch as the first respondent had been allowed to retire on 11-5-1975 without any reservation for continuing the enquiry against him, the order could not be supported. For all these reasons, he made the rule absolute and allowed the writ petition. It is against this, the present appeal has been preferred by the Managing Director of the Corporation. 3. It is urged by Mr.S.Ramalingam, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge had erred in construing the option given by the 1st respondent on 1-3-1974, inasmuch as the 1st respondent had understood the scope of the option because he clearly states ‘having understood the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the leave, provident fund, retirement and other terminal benefits, admissible to the employees under the Central Government and the F.C.I... ‘Therefore, where he clearly understood the disadvantages as well, he cannot say that Rule 9 of the Cental Civil Services (Pension) Rules, will not apply. That rule clearly clothes the authority concerned to continue the disciplinary proceedings albeit the retirement of an employee. ‘Therefore, where he clearly understood the disadvantages as well, he cannot say that Rule 9 of the Cental Civil Services (Pension) Rules, will not apply. That rule clearly clothes the authority concerned to continue the disciplinary proceedings albeit the retirement of an employee. The question of the President of India taking action does not arise at this stage. That will arise only after the completion of the enquiry which stage has not yet reached. Lastly it is submitted that merely because the 1st respondent was allowed to retire on 11-5-1975 that does not mean the enquiry against him under the Pension Rules is liable to be terminated. It is not that the Corporation is talcing action for dismissal, removal or reduction in etc. but only taking action with regard to pension which certainly is well available under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. 4. In opposing this submission, Mr.G.Ramaswami, learned counsel for the 1st respondent urges first and foremost that the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations do not provide for a similar rule as Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. When section 12-A (4)(b) of the Food Corporation of India Act specifically provides for exercise of an option, it merely means the option is exercised so as to get these benefits like leave, provident fund, retirement and other terminal benefits. By that option, rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules does not get attracted. Therefore, where such a rule as rule 9 was not provided for in the Staff Regulations, it is impossible to conceive that this rule will get incorporated by reason of the option. This is because if that were the position, the 1st respondent would not have opted at all and put himself to a detriment. Besides, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, it is only the benefits available under the Pension Rules that were opted for and not the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings. In any event, inasmuch as without any reservation or qualification the first respondent was retired on 11-5-1975 no proceeding could be continued under Rule 9, unless it has been so specifically stated. 5. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, we have got to provide a little legal backdrop. In any event, inasmuch as without any reservation or qualification the first respondent was retired on 11-5-1975 no proceeding could be continued under Rule 9, unless it has been so specifically stated. 5. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, we have got to provide a little legal backdrop. One thing that is striking in this case, as, rightly contended by Mr.G.Ramaswamy, that the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations do not provide for continuance of a disciplinary proceeding after the retirement of an employee of the Corporation. It is in this connection the question arises how are the terminal benefits to be worked out. For this, the answer is found in section 12-A (4)(b) of the Food Corporation Act. It reads: “Every Officer or other employee transferred by an order made under sub- section (1) shall, within six months from the date of transfer, exercise his option in writing to be governed by the leave, provident fund, retirement or other terminal benefits admissible to employees of the Central Government in accordance with the rules and orders of the Central Government as amended from time to time or the leave, provident fund or other terminal benefits admissible to the employees of the Corporation under this Act, and such option once exercised shall be final.” A careful reading of that section clearly shows that it is open to an employee of the Corporation to exercise his option with reference to the following (1) Leave (2) Provident Fund (3) retirement and (4) other terminal benefits. Once such an option is exercised that becomes final. Thereafter, it is not open to him to say because it is disadvantages to him, he revokes his option. It was in this background that the first respondent exercised his option on 1-3-1974 to the following effect: “Having understood the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the leave, provident fund, retirement and other terminal benefits, admissible to the employees under the Central Government and the FCI, I opt to be governed by (i) leave, provident fund, retirement and other terminal benefits admissible to the employees of the Central Government, in accordance with the rules and orders of the Central Government, as amended from time to time”. A careful reading of this option merely shows that the option decides the benefits which we have catelogued will be available to the first respondent in accordance with the rules and orders of the Central Government, as amended from time to time. These benefits are found in Chapter V, Rules 35 to 41 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules. Therefore, if there is any amendment to those rules, those amendments will undoubtedly apply to the first respondent as well. It is in this background we have got to see whether there is any scope for applying rule 9 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules. That rule reads: “9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension. (1) The President reserves to himself the right of with-holding or with-drawing 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 or grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon reemployment 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 sixty 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) ……..” We are of the view that inasmuch as neither section 12-A (4)(b) nor the option exercised by the first respondent on 1-3-1974 has anywhere stated pro tanto the Pension Rules will apply, it is impossible for the Corporation to rely upon rule 9. (b) ……..” We are of the view that inasmuch as neither section 12-A (4)(b) nor the option exercised by the first respondent on 1-3-1974 has anywhere stated pro tanto the Pension Rules will apply, it is impossible for the Corporation to rely upon rule 9. This is because, as we have stated earlier, inasmuch as the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations do not provide for continuance of a disciplinary proceeding after the retirement of an employee, to confer such a power as claimed under rule 9 of the Pension Rules, there must be an express statement. This cannot arise by way of implication because such an implication is not even stated anywhere either in the Food Corporation of India Act or under the Staff Regulations or even in the option. This will be reading something into the Staff Regulations for which no express provision was ever made. Of course, if section 12-A (4)(b) had stated that once an option is exercised, all the rules ‘ mutatis mutandis’ would apply to the Corporation employees, then perhaps there is something to be said in favour of the Corporation. But no such thing arises in this case. Besides, we have already seen from the narration of facts that the first respondent who was originally a Central Government employee serving in the Food Department became an employee of the Corporation. Therefore, in so far as rule 9 contemplates enquiry against a government servant unless there is a specific reference of such a rule being made applicable to the employees of the Corporation, it is impossible to confer such a power on the Corporation. Therefore, though not for the reasons stated by the learned single Judge in the Judgment under appeal, for different reasons, viz. as stated above, we confirm the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.