RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, an ex-employee of the coffee Board, has questioned the legality of the institution of disciplinary proceedings against him after his retirement. ( 2 ) THE petition is in the Order's list. By consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for hearing. ( 3 ) THE undisputed facts of the case, are these : The petitioner joined the service of the Board on 25-8-1943. He retired from service on 28-5-1980. By memorandum dated 5-3-1984, disciplinary proceedings, was instituted against him. The article of charges and the statement of imputation have been set out at Annexures-1 and II to the Memorandum. They read :"annexure-1 article of charges framed against sri U. M. Puttaswamy Gowda, Assistant coffea Marketing Officer, Coffee board, Chickmagalur. That Sri U. M. Puttaswamy Gowda, while functioning as Asst. Coffee marketing Officer, Coffee Board, during the period between 1-1 -1960 and 28-5-80, has committed gross official misconduct inasmuch as he failed to submit true return of the assets and liabilities giving full particulars in prescribed proforma, acquired and disposed of immovable properties without the knowledge of the prescribed authorities, failed to report the transactions pertaining to the movable properties owned or held by him to the prescribed authorities and by abusing his official position, acquired assets disproportionate to the known source. of his income to the tune of Rs. 1,83,259-10 p. as detailed in the imputations of misconduct and thereby contravened Rules 18 (1), 18 (2), 18 (3) and 3 of Coffee board Servants Conduct Rules 1968. Annexure-li statement of imputation, of misconduct, in support of article of charge framed against Sri U. M. Puttaswamy gowda, Asst. Coffee Marketing Officer, coffee Board, Chtckmagalur. Sri U. M. Puttaswamy gowda joined the Coffee Board on 25-8-43 as a Clerk he was promoted as an Inspector on 1 - 6-45. For the purpose of investigation the check period was taken as from 1-1-60 to 28-5-80. During the check period, he Has drawn a total salary of Rs, 1,29,158-76. His first son as a joint family member of his family has drawn a net salary of Rs. 38,454-54 and a total bonus of Rs. 1,757-05. His second son Sri Vijayshankar has drawn a net salary of Rs. 4,749-50. From their family coffee estate, he has received a net income of Rs. 8,70,109-13. His wife received an income of rs. 5,63,162-52. 38,454-54 and a total bonus of Rs. 1,757-05. His second son Sri Vijayshankar has drawn a net salary of Rs. 4,749-50. From their family coffee estate, he has received a net income of Rs. 8,70,109-13. His wife received an income of rs. 5,63,162-52. His elder son received an income of Rs. 1,59,452-04 and his second son received an income of Rs. 1,64,148-01. Thus the family of Sri u. M. Puttaswamy Gowda has totally derived a total income of Rs. 23,46,310-64. The total expenditure during the check period ha been calculated as rs. 20,69,617-10. Sri 'puttaswamy Gowda from his family members acquired assets during the check period for Rs. 4,59,952-64, This likely savings over spending was only rs. 2,76,693-54. All the relevant data has been collected to arrive at these figures. Thus he was having assets dispropotionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 1,83,259-10 during the check period. Thus Sri U. M. Puttaswamy Gowda has misused his official position and committed official misconduct and thereby contravened rule 3 of Coffee board Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Sri U. M. Puttaswamy Gowda, while functioning as a Coffee Board servant has acquired both movable and immovable properties, in his name and. also in the name of his joint family members. It has come in evidence that he has amassed other valuable properties also during the check period in the capacity of a public servant. As per the Coffee Board Servants (Conduct) rules he had to submit returns from time to time regarding his true assets to the Coffee Board authorities. Sri Puttaswamy Gowda has submitted incorrect returns to the Coffee board authorities and also filed false returns. At any time, he being the head of the family has not at all submitted the returns of assets of his wife and of two sons thus he contravened rule 18 (1) of the Coffee Board Servants (Conduct) Rules. Again Sri Puttaswamy Gowda being a public servant during the period 1-1-60 and 29-5-80 acquired and also dis- posed of some of the immovable propeties in his village. For which transaction he has never obtained any previous permission of the office superiors. Sri Puttaswamy Gowda thereby contravened Rule 18 (2) of the coffee Board Servants (Conduct) Rules. So also Sri U. M. Puttaswamy Gowda as a public servant has acquired large amount of moveable assets during the. check period from time to time. For which transaction he has never obtained any previous permission of the office superiors. Sri Puttaswamy Gowda thereby contravened Rule 18 (2) of the coffee Board Servants (Conduct) Rules. So also Sri U. M. Puttaswamy Gowda as a public servant has acquired large amount of moveable assets during the. check period from time to time. But year to year he has not at all intimated such acquisitions to his prescribed authorities regarding these acquisitions both of his and of his family members. Thus he has contravened Rule 18 (3) of the Coffee Board Servants (Conduct) rules. "the plea of the petitioner is that the institution of the inquiry is without authority of law. In support of this plea, the petitioner relies upon Rule 9 of the central Civil Services (Pension) Rule, 1972, which has been adopted by the coffee Board as applicable to its servants. Relevant portion of the said Rule reads ;9. RIGHT OF PRESIDENT TO WITHHOLD or WITHDRAW PENSION ; (1) the President reserv. es to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing 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 sixty per mensem. 2 (a) The departmental proceeding s referred to in sub-rule (1) if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before the 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 depart' mental proceedings are instituted by an authority sub-ordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the president. (b) The departmental proceedings, if hot instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, (i) shall not be instituted save with 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. " in particular, the petitioner relies or) clause (ii) of Rule 9 (2) (b) which provides that the departmental proceedings contemplated under the Rules shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. The learned counsel further pointed out that neither in the Article of Charges. nor in the Statement of Imputations, any event which constituted misconduct on the part of the petitioner, has been set out. ( 4 ) SRI R. J. Babu, learned counsel appearing for the Board, however, resisted the petition on the ground that the misconduct was committed by the petitioner during his whole tenure as Assistant coffee Marketing Officer from 1-1-1960 to 28-5-1980, as a result of which the petititioner was found to possess assets to the tune of Rs. 1,83,259-10, which was disproportionate to. the known sources of his income. He submitted that even on the basis that a major portion of the period specified in the article of charges fell four years prior to the institution of the disciplinary proceedings, atleast a part of the period, that is, from the second week of March 1980 and thereafter upto 25-8-1980 fell within a period of four years prior to the date of institution of the disciplinary proceedings. ( 5 ) I see no force in the submission made on behalf of the Board. The disciplinary proceedings which is permitted by the Rule is in respect of an event which constitutes misconduct and which had been committed by a retired employee within a period of four years prior to the date of institution of the disciplinary proceedings. ( 5 ) I see no force in the submission made on behalf of the Board. The disciplinary proceedings which is permitted by the Rule is in respect of an event which constitutes misconduct and which had been committed by a retired employee within a period of four years prior to the date of institution of the disciplinary proceedings. As could be seen from the contents of Article of Charges and the statement of imputations, no event which constituted misconduct which was committed by the petitioner on any particular day which falls Within the period of four years prior to the institution of disciplinary proceedings, has been indicated. In Annexure-II, not only the income of the petitioner as ascertained from the authorities from time to time, but also the income of his family members has been set out and lastly it is stated that he had assets disproportionate to the known sources of income to the extent of Rs. 1,83,259-10 and therefore it was alleged that the petitioner had mis-used his official position and committed misconduct and thereby contravened rule 3 of the Coffee Board Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1968. There is no specific alienation of misconduct said to have been committed by the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner made any pecuniary gain. In the absence of any Such specific allegation of misconduct alleged to have been committed falling within four years prior to the date of the institution of the disciplinary proceedings, no disciplinary proceedings could have been instituted against the peti ioner having regard to the wording of Rule 9 of the Rules. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings are plainly not authorised by the Rules. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the Board submitted that possession of property to the tune of Rs. 1,83,259-10, which according to the Board was disproportionate to the sources of income, itself was an event. I am unable to agree, for, the disciplinary proceedings could be instituted for being in possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of income only on the allegation that he had acquired such assets by committing misconduct as an officer of the Board. The date on which and the misconduct pursuant to which the petitioner made pecuniary gain has to be specified. Therefore, the possession of assets disproportionate to the sources of income cannot itself be regarded as an event. The date on which and the misconduct pursuant to which the petitioner made pecuniary gain has to be specified. Therefore, the possession of assets disproportionate to the sources of income cannot itself be regarded as an event. Further, the article of charges also does not state that the petitioner acquired any particular property which was disproportionate to the known source of income on any particular date which was within four years prior to the date of institution of disciplinary proceedings. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the institution of the inquiry against the petitioner is plainly not authorised by Rule 9 of the Rules. ( 7 ) IN the result, I make the following order : (i) The writ petition is allowed, (ii) The impugned memorandum dated 5-3-1984 (Annexure-C) instituting disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is set aside and a direction shall issue to the respondents not to proceed with the enquiry. Writ Petition is Allowed. --- *** --- .