Honble VERMA, J. – All the three writ petitions involved the same question of law as to the applicability of Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and therefore, they are being decided together. Civil Writ Petition No. 5793/83 and Civil Writ Petition No. 768/93 also involve the same facts, similar charges and arise out of the similar cause of action. (2). All the three writ petitioners had been superannuated after attaining the age of 58 from their respective posts being held by them. Immediately after retirement on certain charges the petitioners were charged to face an enquiry. Charges related to certain misconducts as mentioned in the chargesheets. After the enquiry having been held, the writ petitioner Ram Singh & Deo Krishan Bohra werepunished with punishment of withholding 1/5 of their pension for the period of 5 years. Similarly, the petitioner Ram Jeevan Dubey was also involved whereby, his pension, gratuity and capitation pension was involved. (3). Common contention in all the three writ petitions is that under Rule 170 of the aforesaid rules, no enquiry could be held until and unless there is any pecu-niary loss caused to the Govt. It is further stated that from reading of the charges in respect of all the petitioners, it is nowhere mentioned as to what pecuniary loss the Govt. had suffered as enumerated in the chargesheets. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in circumstances no provisions of Rule 170 of the Rules could be invoked. Another ground of attack which has been made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner is that at the time when the charges were issued, the petitioners had superannuated and they were not in the Govt. service and, therefore, in any case, the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules could not be made applicable to any of the petitioner and that the chargesheet itself was not in accordance with law, as no action could be takenunder any of the punishment provided under Rule 14 of the Classification and Appeal Rules, 1958. It is further submitted that from the reading of the chargesheets, no offence has been made out of any pecuniary loss to the State and thus, not only initiation of the action against the petitioners but also the final order was not in accordance with law and, therefore, could not be sustained. (4). It is further submitted that from the reading of the chargesheets, no offence has been made out of any pecuniary loss to the State and thus, not only initiation of the action against the petitioners but also the final order was not in accordance with law and, therefore, could not be sustained. (4). The main point involved in the present writ petition is that whether after superannuation but, within the statutory period when the chargesheet had been issued, whether the Govt. was justified and legally competent to issue the chargesheet and, therefore, it is not necessary in the present case to narrate the facts as to when the petitioners had superannuated or as to what are the chargeslevelled against the petitioners. However, it is admitted fact from record that all the petitioners were issued chargesheets within four years from the date when the offence is said to have been committed from the date of issuance of the chargesheet. (5). Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 bestows on the competentauthority the right of withholding or withdrawing the pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specific period and the right of ordering the recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Govt. if in any departmental enquiry or judiciary proceedings the pensioner is found to be guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. It is stated in the Rules that the depart-mental proceedings if instituted when the pensioners were in service, before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the Officer be deemed to be proceedings under this Rule and shall have to be continued and conclude it by the authority, by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service. It is further provided that in casethe proceedings are not instituted when the pensioner was in service or during re-employment, in that situation it would be instituted with the sanction of the Governor and within four years of the event of such institution. It is further provided that in casethe proceedings are not instituted when the pensioner was in service or during re-employment, in that situation it would be instituted with the sanction of the Governor and within four years of the event of such institution. Relevant provisions of Rule 170 read as under : ``Recoveries of losses from the pension : The Governor further reser- ves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension of 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 Government, 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 :– (a) Provided that 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 department proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment :– (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor; (ii) shall not be in 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 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 officer during his service. (6). It is submitted by the petitioners that at the time when the proceedingswere instituted, none of the petitioner was in service and was also not re-employed and, therefore, the petitioners could not have been proceeded with, the contention in this regard in not sustainable for the reason that Rule 170 (B) (II) enable the institution of the proceedings with the sanction of Governor. In the present case it has been averred in the written statement that the proceedings had been initiatedafter obtaining proper sanction from the Governor and, therefore, the formalities in this regard stood completed. In the present case it has been averred in the written statement that the proceedings had been initiatedafter obtaining proper sanction from the Governor and, therefore, the formalities in this regard stood completed. The proceedings had been started when the petitioners stood superannuated and having been started within four years of the cause of action with the sanction of Governor, the objection of initiating the proceedings in this regard, cannot be sustained. (7). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that until and unless there is a pecuniary loss to the Govt., the provisions of Rule 170 are not applicable. For the said prepositions the counsel relies upon the case of Hanumat Prasad Nandwan vs. State of Raj. (1), Single Bench of this Court had held that Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules is not applicable if there is no charge or findings that theGovt. has ever suffered as pecuniary loss caused by the negligence, inaction or the misconduct of the petitioner. (8). Learned counsel for the respondents relies on a Supreme Court judgment in the matter of State of Orissa vs. Kalicharan Mohapatra (2), wherein while interpreting of Rule 6 of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules,1958 which rule is analogus to Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the Supreme Court had held that it was not necessary that the judiciary proceedings should relate to the charge on causing pecuniary loss to the Central or the State Govt. by mis conduct or negligence during the service. It was observed that Sub-rule 6 specifies two grounds upon which action thereunder can be taken. In view of the authorita-tive judgment of Supreme Court, no other view can be held because of the binding nature of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court. The Rule is applicable where the pensioner is guilty of misconduct and the other is where he is found to have caused pecuniary loss to the State of Central Govt. by any misconduct and negligence during his service. It was held, while setting aside the order of the Tri- bunal, that it is not necessary that unless and until chargesheets are specifically made against the pensioner for causing pecuniary loss to the Central or the State Govt. by his negligence, misconduct during his service, no action can be taken against the pensioners. It was held, while setting aside the order of the Tri- bunal, that it is not necessary that unless and until chargesheets are specifically made against the pensioner for causing pecuniary loss to the Central or the State Govt. by his negligence, misconduct during his service, no action can be taken against the pensioners. The Supreme Court has observed as under in Kalicharans case: ``the appellants relied upon Rule 6 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 in support of their action. The appellants case was that in view of the pendency of the said criminal case, they were justified in withholding the gratuity amount and also in not sanctioning the pension finally. The Tribunal has held that the said rule does not avail the appellants inasmuch as the charge against the respondent is not one of causing pecuniary loss to the Central or State Govt. by misconduct or negligence within the meaninig of Rule 6(1). We are of the opinion that the reading of the rule by the Tribunal is unsustainable and incorrect. The rule reads thus: ``Recovery from pension : (1) The Central Government reserves to itself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of orde- ring the recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the central or a State Government, if the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Central or a State Government by misconduct or negligence, during his ser- vice, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. Provided that no such order shall be passed without consulting the Union Public Service Commission; Provided further that; (a) such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the pensioner was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employ- ment, shall, after the final retirement of the pensioner, be deemed to be a proceeding under this sub-rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the pensioner had continued in service. A reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 discloses the following features; (a) if the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or (b) where a pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceeding to have caused pecuniary loss to the Central or State Government by his misconduct or negligence during his service (including the ser- vice rendered on re-employment after retirement), (c) the Central Government is entitled to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a specified period. The Central Government is also entitled to order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Central or State Government. Sub-rule (2) says that: (a) where a departmental or judicial proceeding is instituted under sub-section (1), or (b) where a departmental proceeding is continued under Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-rule (1), (c) such employee shall be sanctioned by the government which instituted such proceedings a provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension admissible to him during the period of pendency of such proceeding, (d) but not gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be paid to him until the conclusion of such proceedings and the issuance of final orders thereon. It is thus clear from an analysis of sub-rule (1) and (2) that where a judicial proceeding is pending against a pensioner for grave misconduct the government is entitled to withhold gratuity amount and/or death-cum-gratuity amount and is also entitled to sanction provisional pension for the period of pendency of the said proceedings. It is not necessary that a judicial proceeding should relate to the charge of causing pecuniary loss to the Central or State Government by misconduct or negligence during his service. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 specifies two grounds upon which action thereunder can be taken. One is where the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct and the other is whether he is found to have caused pecuniary loss to the Central and State Government by misconduct and negligence during his service. Sub- rule (2) provides for orders to be made during the pendency of such proceedings. It may also be mentioned that neither the All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules nor the Pensions Act, General Clauses Act or the Leave Rules (referred to in Rule 2 (2) define the expression ``misconduct. Sub- rule (2) provides for orders to be made during the pendency of such proceedings. It may also be mentioned that neither the All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules nor the Pensions Act, General Clauses Act or the Leave Rules (referred to in Rule 2 (2) define the expression ``misconduct. It would, therefore, be reasonable and permissible to understand the said expression in rule 6 aforesaid in the manner defined in the Prevention of Corruption Act. ``The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in holding that unless the chaar- ge expressly charges the pensioner with causing pecuniary loss to Central or State Government by his negligence or misconduct during his service, the action under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 cannot be taken. (9). The above said observation in the judgment in Kali Charans case is complete answer to the preposition poised by the writ petitioners. It has been heldby the Honble Supreme Court that it is not at all necessary that there should be charge of pecuniary loss. The employee can be proceeded with on account of some misconduct or negligence as well. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the superannuation, the Govt. servant does not remain a employee of the Govt. and, therefore, Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Con-trol and Appeal) Rules, 1958 cannot be made applicable, may be he is not a Govt. Servant but, Rule 170 gives that much power to the State Authority to initiate the proceedings and, therefore, it is to be deemed that such a employee remains under the Control of the Govt. and it is answerable for the misconduct, he might have committed during his service provided the charges are initiated within four yearsof such events of misconduct. (10). and it is answerable for the misconduct, he might have committed during his service provided the charges are initiated within four yearsof such events of misconduct. (10). It is true that the penalties as provided under Rule 14 of the punishment and, Appeals Rules, 1958 can only be imposed if the employee is in service and not superannuated but, under sub- clause 4 of Rule 14, there is a provision to the fact that there can be a cut in the pension and in such situation one of the punishmentas proposed in sub-clause 4 of rule 14 is also similar to Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and it would not make any difference if the pensioner is proceeded with under Rule 16 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1958, but, in that situation the punishment could be inflicted as regard to the pension only, in similar situation as provided in rule 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules. The action of the res-pondents in such situation cannot be said to be illegal. No other point has been argued. (11). For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the writ petitions and all three writ petitions are therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.