Judgment :- The petitioner was a Head Constable in the police force of the Kerala State. He retired from service with effect from 30-4-1993. Preliminary investigation into the misconduct consisting of removal of an important document, was made. On 13-10-1993 memo of charges in respect of the misconduct was served on the petitioner by the Special Branch Inspector, Kottayam. The exact date of service is not known. The specific case of the petitioner is that he retired from the Government service and that the proceedings against him cannot be initiated after his retirement. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Administration), Kottayam has filed a counter affidavit. He admits that the memo of charges proposing disciplinary proceedings was served on the petitioner on 19-10-1993. There is no statement in the counter affidavit that the sanction of the Government which is necessary for commencing enquiry against a retired employee under sub-rule (1) of R.3 was obtained before serving the charge memo on the petitioner. It must therefore be taken to be established that the service of charge memo in the proceedings is without the sanction of the Government. 3. Enquiry into misconduct of a member of Police service can be initiated only when he is in service. Under R.6 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries (Punishment and appeal) Rules, 1958 disciplinary inquiry can be made against "member of the service" which necessarily means that person against whom enquiry is commenced must be in the service. Admittedly the petitioner was not in service on 19-10-1993 when the memo of charges was served on him. Therefore under these rules the enquiry could not have been commenced after the petitioner's retirement, 4. But according to the respondents, an enquiry against a retired employee is permissible under R.3 of Chapter I of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. It is therefore necessary to find out what this Rule provides. This Rule enables the Government to withhold pension of an employee with a view to recovery of liabilities of the employee towards the Government if he is found guilty of misconduct in the disciplinary proceedings. Clause (a) of the proviso stipulates that the enquiry can be continued if it was instituted while an employee was in service. This clause does not apply because no enquiry commenced while he was in service. Clause (a) of the proviso stipulates that the enquiry can be continued if it was instituted while an employee was in service. This clause does not apply because no enquiry commenced while he was in service. The explanation to Clause (a) of R.3 explains as to when departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted. It will be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the employee. Therefore, since the statement of charges was issued to the petitioner long after his retirement, the proceedings commenced upon such statement of charges is not a proceeding instituted under R.3. However such inquiry could be instituted with the previous sanction of the Government. None has been obtained. It is not the respondents' case that sanction to institute the impugned disciplinary proceedings was obtained as is necessary under clause (b) of the proviso to R.3. In my opinion there is no valid proceeding against the petitioner, on the basis of which liability to the Government could be determined. 5. I, therefore, allow the Original Petition and quash the disciplinary proceedings purported to have been instituted by the charge memo dated 13-10-1993 (Ext. P2). Original Petition is allowed.