JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - By this petition a writ of certiorari is claimed against order, dated 19 July 1983, passed by the Senior Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Northen Railway, Allahabad, dismissing the petitioner from the post of travelling ticket examiner. 2. Admittedly, during pendency of enquiry the petitioner retired from service on 31 March 1983. The enquiry report against the petitioner was submitted on 14 July 1983, and the petitioner was dismissed on 19 July 1983. It was observed in the order that although the petitioner attained the age 58 years on 31 March 1983, and was allowed to retire on superannuation with effect from that date, but the departmental proceedings which were instituted against him when he was in service were allowed to be continued under Para. 315 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules read with rule 2308 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II. The authority further observed that considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, it was decided to impose penalty of dismissal from service. He was also permitted to file an appeal under rule 18 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967. 3. What is claimed by the petitioner is that as he had retired, there was no power in the punishing authority to dismiss him from service. According to him. the enquiry was continued under rule 2308, which empowers the President to withhold the pension, and, therefore, the punishing authority committed an error of jurisdiction in directing dismissal from service of the petitioner. Rule 2308 reads as under : "2308. Recoveries from pension - The President reserves to himself the right to order recovery from the pension of an officer who entered service on or or after the 23 February 1939, of any amount on account of losses found in judicial or departmental proceedings to have been caused to Government by the negligence or fraud of such officer during his service. 4. 4. Provided that : (l) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President; (ii) shall be instituted before the officers retirement from service or within a year from the date on which he was last on duty whichever is later ; (iii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than one year before the date on which the officer was last on duty ; and (iv) shall be conducted by such authority and in such places whether in India or elsewhere, as the President may direct. (2) all such departmental proceedings shall be conducted if the officer concerned so requests, in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made ; and (3) such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty, shall have been instituted in accordance with Sub-cls. (ii) and (iii) of Cl. (1). 5. From the perusal of this rule it is apparent that the President;has been empowered to withhold or withdraw the pension of an employee if it is found in departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings that the employee is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. In respect of an employee who has retired, the proviso permits the enquiry to be continued but that continuation is only for , the purposes of the principal clause, i.e., for withholding or withdrawing the pension. It does not empower the punishing authority to remove or dismiss the petitioner from service. The argument by learned counsel for railway that by virtue of proviso, the punishing authority could have passed the dismissal order cannot be accepted. The matter is also concluded by several authorities. In State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 214, it was held that if disciplinary enquiry was pending it was open to the authority concerned to pass an order continuing the employee in service and then to pass the order of dismissal or removal, but if during pendency of the proceedings an employee has retired, then he cannot be dismissed or removed. As pointed out earlier, it is not disputed that the petitioner had retired and there was no order permitting him to continue in service, therefore, the order imposing penalty of dismissal could not have been passed against him. 6. As pointed out earlier, it is not disputed that the petitioner had retired and there was no order permitting him to continue in service, therefore, the order imposing penalty of dismissal could not have been passed against him. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since dismissal order is being quashed, a direction may be issued to the opposite parties to pay the pension. This argument is advanced on language of rule 2308. According to the learned counsel pension is a property which could not be withheld by the opposite parties unless there was a specific order to that effect. According to him so long there was no order by the President withholding or withdrawing the pension, the authorities were not justified in not paying the same. Learned counsel for railways on the other hand has produced the record, from which it appears, the papers for withholding the pension has been forwarded to the President, but the correspondence indicates that the matter is still pending between the Allahabad office and the Railway Board at Delhi. 7. In any case, the matter stands concluded by a circular issued by Railway Board as far back on 26 August 1967, which provides that in a case where an employee has retired then the only course open to disciplinary authority is to record a finding on the charges and submit the report to the President, who shall thereafter proceed in the manner indicated therein. The order of dismissal as we have pointed above, is bad not only for the reasons stated there, but also in violation of the circular issued by the Railway Board. At the same time merely because the order of dismissal is bad, it cannot be said that the proceedings which had been taken under rule 2308 have come to an end. The question of withholding or withdrawing the pension can still be decided by the President under rule 2308. But without expressing any opinion or making any observation further which may prejudice the right of parties, it is proposed that during pendency of these proceedings it would be fair to direct opposite parties to pay interim pension to the petitioner. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order, dated 19 July 1983, in so far as it imposes penalty of dismissal of the petitioner is quashed. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order, dated 19 July 1983, in so far as it imposes penalty of dismissal of the petitioner is quashed. As stated earlier, we have not examined the findings recorded by the punishing authority and we are quashing the order because of the law and the circular issued by the railways. The opposite parties are further directed to pay interim pension from the date of retirement till February 1985, within a period of two months from today. Interim pension for the month of March 1985, and onwards shall be paid regularly to the petitioner so long the matter is not decided by the President finally under rule 2308.