Judgment :- Petitioner who has retired on 30-6-1990 from the service of the 4th respondent as Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Kannur on superannuation challenges decision taken by the Government to initiate judicial proceedings against him under R.3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. He also seeks a declaration that the amendment to Cl.(c) of the proviso to R.3 part III of the K.S.R. as evidenced by Ext. P13 notification would not govern persons who have already retired from service prior to the date of notification. The petitioner would further contend that, he is entitled to have full pension and death-cum¬retirement gratuity and all other racial benefits due to him disbursed forthwith with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. As per letter dated 5-10-1990 the 2nd respondent had admitted to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 1479/- towards pension and Rs. 48800/- towards death-cum-retirement gratuity. The amount of pension commuted and commuted value of pension were fixed as Rs. 591/- and Rs. 8991/- respectively. Since, there was delay in disbursal of the amount, the petitioner submitted representation dated 23-12-1990 and later Ext. P2 dated 4-2-1991. Non-liability certificate was issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner, Kannur under letter dated 22-9-1990 and according to the petitioner, no disciplinary proceedings what-so-ever were initiated or pending against him at the time of his retirement. The petitioner continued to make representations and ultimately to his representation Ext. P3 dated 5-3-1991 he was given a reply Ext. P4 dated 24-3-1991. 3. In Ext. P4 after referring to the pension admitted by the Accountant General it is stated that since disciplinary actions pending finalisation against the petitioner, only provisional pension as provided under R.3-A(a) Part III of the K.S.R. was sanctioned at the rate of Rs. 986/- p.m. Since the petitioner was not aware of any departmental proceedings initiated against him, he submitted a representation Ext. P5 dated 30-4-1991 requesting for finalisation of the alleged disciplinary proceedings. Even the provisional pension was not being paid to him, therefore he submitted Exts. B6 and P7 representations and later representation dated 6-8-1991 to the Minister for Finance and another representation dated 3-9-1991 before the Secretary to Government, Taxes department. Yet another representation was filed by him before the Chief Minister on 1-11-1991. Quoting the above representation he was given a reply Ext. P5 dated 14-1-1992. Under the above letter he was informed. B6 and P7 representations and later representation dated 6-8-1991 to the Minister for Finance and another representation dated 3-9-1991 before the Secretary to Government, Taxes department. Yet another representation was filed by him before the Chief Minister on 1-11-1991. Quoting the above representation he was given a reply Ext. P5 dated 14-1-1992. Under the above letter he was informed. that the Government as per G.Oi(Rt) 473/91/TD dated 19-7-1991 had accorded sanction to initiate judicial proceedings against the petitioner under R.3 part 111 of the K.S.R. for the irregular issue of registration certificate which resulted in huge loss of revenue to the Government. He was further informed by the Secretary, Board of Revenue that under these circumstances, the Board was not in a position to consider his representation at. that time. 4. The petitioner would submit that in the year.1983 pursuant to a notice dated 13-6-1983 received by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner the petitioner had submitted Ext. P12 report detailing the circumstances under which the registration certificate issued to certain assessees were cancelled. A registration had been granted in the year 1982 to one K. Jaya Prakash, Proprietor, Prakash Traders, Big ba/ar, Kozhikode, a notice was issued to him directing him to remit an amount of Rs. 157- for delayed filing of Form No. 9 returns from April, 1982 to June, 1982 and to pay penal interest for the delayed payment of tax for April, 1982 to June, 1982. He did not respond to the notice, he did not produce the accounts in the year 1981-82 for scrutiny of the petitioner, even though sufficient opportunity was given to him. Pursuant thereto a notice was given to him directing him to show cause why registration certificate granted to him cannot, be cancelled. Since no reply was received, the petitioner passed order dated 16-5-1983 cancelling registration certificate under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and registration certificate granted under Ext. P9 proceedings dated 16-5-1983. The petitioner had occasion to cancel registration certificate issued in favour of Sri K.P. Abdurahiman, K.P. Traders, Kozhikode under Ext. P10 proceedings dated in 3 6-1983. He had also cancelled registration certificate granted to Sri C.B. Aboobacker Koya, Proprietor, Rani Enterprises under Ext. P1 proceedings dated 5-4-1983. Since the petitioner did not hear from the department after the submission of Ext. P12 report, he was under the bona fide belief that his report was accepted by the department. P10 proceedings dated in 3 6-1983. He had also cancelled registration certificate granted to Sri C.B. Aboobacker Koya, Proprietor, Rani Enterprises under Ext. P1 proceedings dated 5-4-1983. Since the petitioner did not hear from the department after the submission of Ext. P12 report, he was under the bona fide belief that his report was accepted by the department. He submits that the registration certificates were issued to the above mentioned parties after following the required formalities and after gelling the files scrutinised by the Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) and Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence) who did not point out any defect. The petitioner would therefore submit that he-is not liable to be proceeded against for issue of the registration certificate to the above mentioned persons. 5. Il is contended by .the petitioner that no judicial proceeding can be initiated against him after his retirement on the charge of causing loss to the department while lie was in service. According to the petitioner, Ext. P13 amendment to R.3 of Part III of the K.S.R. came' into force only when it was nullified in the Gazelle on 4-12-1990. in support of the contention he relies on a Full Bench decision of this Court in R.K. V. Motors & Timbers (P) Lid. v. Regional Transport Officer, 1982 KLT 166 (FB). Therefore, the petitioner's contention is that the amended provision cannot have any application in his case as he has retired from service on 30-6-1990. Apart from the above, it is contended by the petitioner that he was exercising quasi judicial function while registration was granted in the year 1982 to dealers and which registrations were cancelled by him in 1983. Even if he has committed a mistake it cannot be treated as mis-conduct, as it happened in exercise of a quasi judicial function. Apart from the above, he would submit that in respect of an incident happened as early as in 1982 if action is allowed to he taken 10 years after the incident that too after the retirement of the petitioner, such action would be certainly arbitrary and unfair. According to the respondents, there is no illegality for the proposal to initiate judicial proceeding against the petitioner. Even if the petitioner has retired from service, Ext. P13 amendment to the rule would enable the respondents to proceed against the petitioner. Sanction was granted by the Government on 19-7-1991 in accordance with [he amended rule. According to the respondents, there is no illegality for the proposal to initiate judicial proceeding against the petitioner. Even if the petitioner has retired from service, Ext. P13 amendment to the rule would enable the respondents to proceed against the petitioner. Sanction was granted by the Government on 19-7-1991 in accordance with [he amended rule. Respondents would further contend that it is not the invariable rule that no officer can be taken to have committed a misconduct only for the reason that he was exercising quasi judicial authority. 6. The petitioner was issued notice dated 3-6-19X3 by the 3rd respondent asking for a report regarding the registration certificate issued in the case of Prakash Traders, Calicut. To the above, the petitioner submitted Ext.P 12 report dated 13-6-1983. From the pleadings in this case it is seen that the reports were called for from the petitioner in respect of registration certificates granted by him to certain dealers in 1982. After the petitioner's submitting report no further proceedings were taken by the respondents. The petitioner retired from service on 30-6-1990. As per letter dated 5-10-1990 the 2nd respondent admitted petitioner's pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity. Since the amount was not being disbursed, the petitioner submitted representations dated 23-12-1990,4-2-1991 and 5-3-1991. It was only by a letter dated 24-3-1991 (Ext. P4) the petitioner was informed that disciplinary action against him is pending finalisation and therefore he can be granted only provisional pension. It is relevant to note that even at that time sanction had not been grained by the Government to take judicial proceeding against the petitioner as contemplated by clause (c) of the proviso to R.3 Part III of the K.S.K. after its amendment under Ext. P13. Such sanction was granted by the Government only on 19-7-1991 and the petitioner was intimated about the same only six months thereafter. Cxl.PX communication by which he was informed about the order passed by the Government is dated 14-1-1992. The facts stated above would clearly show that there hail been inordinate delay in taking a decision to initiate judicial proceeding against the petitioner. 7. Clause (c) of the proviso to R.3 Part 111 of the K.S.R. before Ext. Cxl.PX communication by which he was informed about the order passed by the Government is dated 14-1-1992. The facts stated above would clearly show that there hail been inordinate delay in taking a decision to initiate judicial proceeding against the petitioner. 7. Clause (c) of the proviso to R.3 Part 111 of the K.S.R. before Ext. P13 amendment reads as follows: "(c) If such judicial proceeding, it not instituted while the employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment skill be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which look price more than four years before such institution." Going by the above provision no judicial proceeding could be initiated against the petitioner alter his retirement, as 7 years had elapsed from the alleged cause of action by the time the petitioner retired from service. The question to be considered is whether the amended provision which reads as follows can be made applicable to the petitioner's case: "(c) No such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted, save with the sanction of qic Government, in respect of cause of action which arose or an event which look place more than four years before- such institution." Clause (c) was amended as per G.O.(P) No. 362/90/Fin. dated 25-6-1990. But it is published only in she Gazette dated 4-12-1990 as the Kerala Service (Amendment) Rules, 1990. Rule l(ii) of the above Rules provided that the amendment to the Rules shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 14111 November, 1966. Even though the amendment, is given retrospective effect by the above mentioned provision in the Rules, the amendment itself was published in the Gazette only after the petitioner retired from service. A Full Bench of this Court has held in 1982 KLT 162 (Supra) that, the relevant date is the date of release of the Gazette to the public and not the date of the order. In D.I). Rtijii v. HA. Kanl/umij & others, 1990 (4) SCC 178, the Apex Court has held that as far as subordinate legislation is concerned publication or promulgation is essential so as to bring the provision effective. In the present case the date of publication in the Gazette is later than the date of retirement of the petitioner. In D.I). Rtijii v. HA. Kanl/umij & others, 1990 (4) SCC 178, the Apex Court has held that as far as subordinate legislation is concerned publication or promulgation is essential so as to bring the provision effective. In the present case the date of publication in the Gazette is later than the date of retirement of the petitioner. If that be so, it 1ms to be considered whether a rule which has been issued after the retirement of the petitioner can be made applicable to him even if the Rule is given retrospective effect, w.e.f. 14-11-1966. At the lime of petitioner's retirement no judicial proceeding could have been instituted against him in respect of a cause of action which had arisen four years before such institution. It was a condition of service as far as the petitioner was concerned. Such a condition of service cannot be changed to his disadvantage after his retirement by an amendment to the rule which is brought into force alter his retirement. Imposition of such penal provision with retrospective effect on an officer who has already retired from service would certainly amount to arbitrary exercise of power.1 am of the view that the amendment brought under Ext. P13 cannot be made applicable to employees who had already retired from service at the time when Ext. PI3 was notified, if Ext. P13 amendment was published in the Gazette before the date of retirement of the petitioner judicial proceedings could have been instituted with the approval of the Government even if by that time the period of four years was already over as the amendment is given retrospective effect from 1966. But it is not so when Ext. P13 amendment itself is brought in only after the retirement of the petitioner. 8. The contention raised by the petitioner that since registration was granted by him in exercise of quasi judicial power it cannot be a cause of action for disciplinary proceeding against him cannot be accepted as such in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & ors. v. A.N. Saxena, JT 1992 (2) SC 532 - where the Supreme Court has held that when an officer is performing judicial or quasi judicial functions disciplinary proceedings regarding any of his actions in the course of such proceedings should be taken only alter great caution and a close scrutiny of his actions. v. A.N. Saxena, JT 1992 (2) SC 532 - where the Supreme Court has held that when an officer is performing judicial or quasi judicial functions disciplinary proceedings regarding any of his actions in the course of such proceedings should be taken only alter great caution and a close scrutiny of his actions. The need for extreme care and caution before initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer performing judicial or quasi judicial function in respect of his' actions in discharge or purported to discharge his functions has to be taken note of. But it. is not as if such action cannot be taken at all. Where the actions of such an officer indicate culpability', namely, a desire to oblige himself or unduly favour one of the parties or an improper motive there is no reason why disciplinary action should not be taken. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that since he was discharging quasi judicial function, no disciplinary action can be taken against him cannot be accepted. 9. But as mentioned earlier there had been inordinate and unexplained delay in taking a decision to initiate judicial proceeding against the petitioner for alleged misconduct in granting registration certificates. The petitioner retired from service about 1 years after the incident. It is not. a case that the authorities came to know about, the alleged cause of action only at the time of his retirement or after his retirement. Report had been obtained from him. It was not. though necessary to initiate any proceeding against him for a period of 7 years. Eveen the sanction was obtained from the Government as contemplated under Cl.(c) of the proviso to R.3 Part [II of the K.S.R. only after one year of petitioner's retirement. Another aspect which has to be noted is that only when the petitioner insisted in making representation for granting his pensionary benefits, sanction was obtained from the Government on 19-11-199 i. The petitioner was intimated about the same even later, that is on 14-1-1992. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case,1 am inclined to take the view that if respondents are now allowed to institute judicial proceeding against the petitioner accepting the contention that Ext. P13 amendment is applicable in this case, it will amount to injustice being meted out to the petitioner. Ext. P8, therefore, stands quashed. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case,1 am inclined to take the view that if respondents are now allowed to institute judicial proceeding against the petitioner accepting the contention that Ext. P13 amendment is applicable in this case, it will amount to injustice being meted out to the petitioner. Ext. P8, therefore, stands quashed. The petitioner is entitled to pension and gratuity as admitted to him under Ext. P1. 10. It is submitted by the petitioner that, the amount of D.C.R.G. due to him was released on 14-9-1993 and he received the amount on 24-9-1993. it. is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is entitled to 18% interest on the delayed payment of D.C.R.G. He relics on decisions of the Supreme Court in A', Kaput' v. Director of Inspection (Painting & Publication) Income Tax and another, JT 1994 (6) SC 354 and Alexander v. A. E. 0., Kollant,1994 (1) KLT 669.1 find that there is no justification for the delay in payment of D.C.R.G. due to the petioner. Respondents are, therefore, directed to pay interest on the amount of D.C.R.G. due to the petitioner at the rate of 18% from 1-11-1990 till the date of actual payment. The balance amount, due to the petilioner as pensionary benefits on the basis of Ext.P1 will also bear 18% interest from 1-11-1990. The arrears of pensionary benefits and the amount due as interest on D.C.R.G. as well as other pensionary benefits will be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of two months. The original petition stands allowed as above.