Phukan, J. — The petitioner joined as a member of the Assam Civil Service Class II in the year, 1952 and thereafter he was promoted to the Assam Civil “'Service Class I in the year 1979, He retired from service on superannuation on 31.1.87. While he was in service, a departmental proceeding was drawn up on 11'.5.73. Another departmental proceeding was also drawn up on 31.5.76. Both the departmental proceedings were pending and It could not be completed though as many as four different enquiry officers were appointed. On the date of his retirement the Deputy Secre­tary to the Government of Assam in tee Personnel Department, by a letter No. AAP. 166/82/14 dated 31.1.87 informed the petitioner as follows:- “I am directed to inform you that the Governor of Assam is pleased to order that the departmental proceeding drawn up vide notice No. RLR. 140/75/15 dated 31.5.76 be hereby converted and continued under Rule 21 of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969.” Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court to exercise our writ jurisdiction to quash the aforesaid letter dated 31.1.87 of the Deputy Secretary. The petitioner has also submitted that the depart­mental proceeding drawn upon 31.5.76 may be quashed. 2. Pension means the payment of a sum of money by the employer for the past services rendered by an employee. In State of Kerela vs. M. Padamnabhan, AIR 1985 S. C. 356, the Apex Court while dealing in the question of delay in payment of pension, held that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property in their hands. . In view of Article 300-A of the Constitution we are of the view that no person can be deprived of his pension which is a property without any authority of law... In the case in hand, the learned Government Advocate has urged that the State Government can do so in view of Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1961, for short the Rules, and we shall presently discuss about the ambit and scope of the said Rule 21. 3. There cannot be any dispute that master and servant relationship between the present petitioner and the respondent-State of Assam has ceased with effect from 31,1.87, i. e., the date of retirement. 3. There cannot be any dispute that master and servant relationship between the present petitioner and the respondent-State of Assam has ceased with effect from 31,1.87, i. e., the date of retirement. In view of the well settled law that a disciplinary proceeding can be drawn and continued against a government servant only when he is still in service, the proceeding in question which was drawn up on 31.5.76 against the petitioner and decided to be continued by the State in view of the letter of the Deputy Secretary stated above we are of the opinion that the said proceeding can- be con­tinued Only if it is covered by Rule 21 of the Rules as the said proceeding cannot be continued otherwise as the relationship of employer and employee has come to an end. 4. We may now quote the relevant portion of the said Rules. “21. 4. We may now quote the relevant portion of the said Rules. “21. The Governor of Assam reserves to himself 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 Govt., 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 officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re employment, shall, after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service ; , (b) such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether his retirement or during his re-employment- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor of Assam ; (ii) shall not be ii respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution ; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor of Assam may direct and in accordance with procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service; (c) no such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the officer vas 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 4 years before such institution ; and (d) the Assam Service Commission snail 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 officer or pensioner, or if he has been placed under suspension from an earlier 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 the 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. 5. The said Rule namely, Rule 21 came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Shri Girija Kumar Phukan vs. The State of Assam and others, (1984) 2 GLR 488, and after considering the said Rule and also decision of the Apex Court this Court held as follows:- “'12. For the foregoing reasons we entertain no doubt about the position that Rule 21 of the Pension 'Rules does not contemplate or authorize automatic continuation of any pending disciplinary proceeding against a retired Govt. 'servant' Indeed, according to us, condition precedent for continuance of the - proceeding in terms of clause (a) thereof is a decision of the competent authority, namely, Governor of Assam, to take action against the person concerned under Rule 21. That apart, before a pending proceeding can be “continued” after retirement of a Govt. servant a show cause notice must be served on him apprising him of the decision and of the action proposed to be taken in terms of 'clause (a) of Rule 21. Reasonableness of this procedure would, however further mandate these requirements to be fulfilled in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable time 6. The impugned letter dated 31. 3. 87 from the Depety Secretary to the present petitioner, which we have quoted above, is not a 'show cause notice' but a decision of the Governor to continue the proceeding. In our opinion this is not a compliance of the law laid down by this Court in Glrija Kumar Phukan (supra). The authority should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause why the departmental proceeding drawn up on 31. 5 76 should not continued. On this ground alone the impugned letter is liable to be quashed. 7. In our opinion this is not a compliance of the law laid down by this Court in Glrija Kumar Phukan (supra). The authority should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause why the departmental proceeding drawn up on 31. 5 76 should not continued. On this ground alone the impugned letter is liable to be quashed. 7. We have considered the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules and on close scrutiny of the said Rule we are of the opinion that the right of the Governor of Assam to withhold or withdraw a-pension or: a part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, is in connection with the right of the Governor for recovery from the pensioner the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the government. In other words, we are of' the opinion, that government can exercise this right under Rule 21 only for the purpose of recovery of any pecuniary loss caused to the government and for no other purpose. This is clear from the intention of the rule-makers as the rule-makers were aware that after retirement there was no relationship of employer and employee, and as such, the government can only recover from a retired government servant any pecuniary Toss that might have been caused to the government, while the employee was serving under the State. Accordingly, the framers of the Rule have used the conjunctive 'and' in the said Rule 21. This Rule 21 cannot be invoked for any other purpose. Though the learned Government Advocate strenuously urged that if in a departmental proceeding it was found that the government servant was guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in discharge of his official duty during the period of his service, the govern­ment can order withholding or withdrawing, of pension. We are unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel as the relationship of employer and employee ceased on the day the employee retired from service on superannuation. We further hold that for any misconduct or negligence committed by a employee during his. period of service no punishment by way of withholding or withdrawing pf pension i$ permissible under the law after the employee has retired from service. 8. The departmental proceeding drawn up on 31.5.76 is available on record along with the charge. We further hold that for any misconduct or negligence committed by a employee during his. period of service no punishment by way of withholding or withdrawing pf pension i$ permissible under the law after the employee has retired from service. 8. The departmental proceeding drawn up on 31.5.76 is available on record along with the charge. The said charge runs as follows:- “That while you were working as A.SO. in Gauhati Sadar Circle, you passed mutation illegally in favour of transferees in Patta Nos. and Dag Nos as shown in the Statement of allegation though these transferees were not in actual possession of the land purchased from Shri Rulin Ram Phukan against whom a ceiling case being No.103/60-61 was started and thereby yon helped Shri Phukan to dispose of some land which could have been acquired under ceiling Act.” 9. From this said charge we find-that the only allegation against-the petitioner Was that be committed illegality id passing the mutation order in the revenue records while he was serving at Assistant Settlement Officer, Guwahati. From the above charge we are unable to hold that by the said action of the petitioner any pecuniary loss was caused to the government. We, therefore, hold that the said proceeding cannot be continued after retirement of the present petitioner, and as such, the impugned letter dated 31.1.87 from the Deputy Secre­tary is liable to be quashed on this ground also. 10. It is really unfortunate that the State could not complete the departmental proceeding during the long period of about ten years, and in our opinion, such action of the respondents smacks of unreaso­nableness violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, For the reasons stated above we accept the petition, quash the impugned letter No. AAP. 166/82/14 dated 31.1.87 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel Department and make the Rule absolute. The petitioner, who is a retired government servant shall be entitled to costs which is quantified at Rs. 250/-(Rupees two hundred fifty) only.