JUDGMENT In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who was working under the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Burdwan Range, Chinsurah, had challenged the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner and the order passed in the said proceeding directing the withholding of 25% of the pension payable to the petitioner after his retirement for a period of five years with effect from 1st December, 1991. The impugned order was passed on 20th November, 1991. Shortly the facts are that the petitioner retired from service as Head Clerk on 30th November, 1989. Just before his retirement on 17th October, 1989, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner had acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Thereafter, the Presenting Officer was appointed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Burdwan Range, Chinsurah being the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. The proceeding continued from October, 1989 to 1991 and after the conclusion of the enquiry a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges against the petitioner had been proved. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 20th November, 1991 was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Burdwan Range, Chinsurah, wherein he has stated as follows :– "I have gone through the articles of charges, statement of P. Ws, the P. W. exhibits, the statement of D. Ws, the defence exhibits and also the report of the Enquiring Authority, along with other relevant papers. After applying the mind on all aspects of the proceeding including the fact that the Charged Officer has already retired from service, I order that 25% of the amount of pension payable to the Charged Officer be withhold for a period of 5 years with effect from 1.12.91. Copy of findings of the Enquiring Authority may be acknowledged. The Treasury Officer, Chinsurah, Hooghly, is informed accordingly." 2. No one has appeared when the matter was called on for bearing. No affidavit has been filed in this case by the respondents. 3. In my view, the entire proceedings in this case are vitiated in law. The petitioner ceased to be a government servant on the expiry of 30th November, 1989 when he retired from his service. Thereafter, the employer-employee relationship came to an end and no proceeding could have been continued against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. 3. In my view, the entire proceedings in this case are vitiated in law. The petitioner ceased to be a government servant on the expiry of 30th November, 1989 when he retired from his service. Thereafter, the employer-employee relationship came to an end and no proceeding could have been continued against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. The only provision under which any proceeding could have been initiated against the petitioner after his retirement was under the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Rules, 1971. This has not been done in this case. 4. In my view, therefore, the proceeding which had been continued after the retirement of the petitioner under Rule 10 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971, cannot be sustained. 5. My attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in the case of (1) Dinesh Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 1989 LAB IC 329. In that case also after the retirement of the writ petitioner from service the respondents continued the disciplinary proceeding. There this Court that following the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of (2) R. P Nair v. Kerala State Electricity Board reported in AIR 1979 Ker 135 held that such a course is unwarranted and cannot be recorded to. 6. My attention has also been drawn to a decision of this Court in (3) Ram Gopal Bhattacharyya v. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 91 CWN 716. There, this Court considered the scope and effect of rule 10(1) of West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Rules, 1971. It has been held that the said rule has very limited and narrow application and can be invoked for the purpose of recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the Government by the pensioner because of gross misconduct or negligence during his service. In this case I have already indicated that no proceeding was initiated by the authority after his retirement. The proceeding was initiated before his retirement, and accordingly, the question of application of rule 10(1) of West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Rules, 1971 does not and cannot arise at all. In this case I have already indicated that no proceeding was initiated by the authority after his retirement. The proceeding was initiated before his retirement, and accordingly, the question of application of rule 10(1) of West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Rules, 1971 does not and cannot arise at all. Even assuming that the proceeding which had been initiated under Rule 10 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 can be converted in a proceeding under Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Rules, 1971 after the retirement of the charged Officer, even then unless there is any loss caused to the government the question of withholding of the pension for recovery of any money cannot arise at all. In this case the allegations against the petitioner are not that because of his misconduct the Government suffered loss or damage. The misconduct is that he allegingly acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. 7. My attention has also been drawn to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (4) Arun Kumar Biswas v. Superintendent of Police, Burdwan & Ors. reported in 1992(1) CHN 354 where the scope of rule 10(1) of West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Rules, 1971 has been considered. 8. In my view, unless there is a definite charge against the government servant who has retired that he caused loss to the Government in course of his employment by committing grave misconduct or negligence, no proceeding whether initiated before his retirement or after his retirement, can be sustained. If there is such a specific charge, then if it is ultimately proved that misconduct or negligence of the incumbent has caused loss to the government and such loss is actually quantified, such loss can be recovered from the pension payable by the government to the retired servant. In this case, the charge was framed before his retirement and the charge related to misconduct in the sense that he acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is not the case that such assets were acquired by defrauding or by causing loss to the Government. 9. For the reasons aforesaid this application succeeds. 10. The impugned proceeding culminating in the order dated 20th November, 1991 are set aside and quashed. It is not the case that such assets were acquired by defrauding or by causing loss to the Government. 9. For the reasons aforesaid this application succeeds. 10. The impugned proceeding culminating in the order dated 20th November, 1991 are set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to release the full pension of the petitioner with arrears and all other retirement benefits within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the event, such full pension with arrears and all retirement benefits are not made available to the petitioner within the time specified, then the arrear pension and all retirement benefits shall carry interest at the rate of 12% from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the date of payment and such interest shall be recovered by the Government from the Officers or the staff concerned who would be responsible for delay in releasing the pensionary and retirement benefits to the petitioner. All parties concerned are to act on a signed xerox copy of the judgment and order on the usual undertaking.