Judgment :- P.A. Mohammed, J. The petitioner entered the service of. the first respondent, Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. on 13.11.1963 as Assistant Manager. He retired from service on superannuation on 23.9.1996. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext. P2 order issued by the first respondent dated 20.9.1996 refusing to permit him to retire from service. 2. The Corporation framed Service Rules for its Officers and Clause 10 thereof relates to retirement, which is as follows: Retirement age shall be 58. An officer may also be allowed to retire voluntarily on attaining the age of 55 or completion of 25 years of service which ever is earlier, provided that he shall inform the Corporation in writing at least three months in advance. applying the above clause, retirement, date of the petitioner was 23.9.1996 about which there is no dispute. The question is whether the Corporation can compel the petitioner to continue in service after the age of superannuation. Ext. P2 order issued by the Corporation supplies the reason for refusing permission to the petitioner to retire from service. The said order is extracted below. "Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against you on certain charges of misconduct detailed in memo dated 25.9.1995 and pursuant thereto, you have been kept under suspension. It is noticed that you are due to retire from service on 23.9.1996 and that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against you is not likely to be concluded before that date. In the normal course, you should have retired from service on the due date of your superannuation' on 23.9.1996, but however for the purpose of completing the disciplinary proceedings against you, it has been decided to refuse to permit you to retire and accordingly you will be treated as if you have not retired on the due date of your superannuation and you will continue to be under suspension pending enquiry, until further orders". From the above, it is apparent that the Corporation decided not to permit the petitioner to retire on the date of superannuation only for the reason that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have not been completed. Counsel for the first respondent submitted that as per Ext. R1(e) communication from the Government, the Corporation was informed that the Government have decided to conduct a vigilance enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. Counsel for the first respondent submitted that as per Ext. R1(e) communication from the Government, the Corporation was informed that the Government have decided to conduct a vigilance enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. It was in view of the said letter the Corporation decided to keep the domestic enquiry against the petitioner in abeyance. In this connection, it has to be observed that what the Government in Ext. R1(e) directed the Corporation was to proceed against the petitioner immediately for the irregularities reported in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Secretary to Government. There the Government have not directed the Corporation to keep the domestic enquiry in abeyance, on the other hand the direction given was to complete the enquiry immediately. It is not known why the enquiry was not completed immediately as directed by the Government. Counsel for the Corporation pointed out that the entire records were in the custody of the Vigilance Department in connection with the enquiry initiated by them. That cannot be said to be an excuse for not completing the enquiry immediately pursuant to the direction contained in Ext. R1(e). 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that contractual relationship between the petitioner and the Corporation has ceased to exist on his retirement from service. He therefore, pleads that the Corporation has no power or jurisdiction to direct the petitioner not to retire from service. The Corporation by Ext. P2 decided to keep the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. What the counsel for the petitioner points out is that the action taken by the Corporation is totally illegal and against the rules prevalent in the Corporation. 4. First of all the rules of the Corporation do not permit continuance of a retired employee or an officer in the Corporation for the purpose of completing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him prior to the date of retirement. In this context, counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Xavier v. K.S. E.B. (1979 KLT 80), wherein R.3 of Part III Kerala Service Rules came up for consideration. In this context, the Full Bench observed: "The Rule does not authorise the continuance of disciplinary proceedings as such, against the Government Servant after his retirement. Both on principle and on authority, such a petition cannot be easily countenanced. In this context, the Full Bench observed: "The Rule does not authorise the continuance of disciplinary proceedings as such, against the Government Servant after his retirement. Both on principle and on authority, such a petition cannot be easily countenanced. It allows only a limited type of enquiry to be proceeded with, namely an enquiry in regard to with holding or with drawing pension, or of ordering recovery from pension by reason of any misconduct or negligence during the period in service of the employee." Of course, the provisions contained in Part III Kerala Service Rules authorise continuance of disciplinary proceedings for such limited purposes. As far as the present case is concerned, the rule does not authorise continuance of the disciplinary proceeding for the limited purpose as provided in R.3 Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. 5. However, counsel for toe Corporation has brought to my notice the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram (AIR 1970 SC 214). The Supreme Court in that case was considering R.3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and appeal) Rules, 1952. In the said decision the Supreme Court observed as below: "There can be no doubt that if disciplinary action is sought to be taken against a Government it must be done before lie retires as provided by the said rule. If a disciplinary enquiry cannot be concluded before the date of such retirement, the course open to the Government is to pass an order of suspension and refuse and retain him in service till such enquiry is completed and a final order is passed therein. That such a course was adopted by the Punjab Government by passing, the order of suspension on July 31,1958, cannot be gainsaid." What is laid down by the Supreme Court is not an absolute principle to be applied in all cases. The above principle has been laid down in view of the provisions contained in R.3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & appeal ) Rules. The said rule provides that a government servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct shall not be permitted to retire on his reaching the date of compulsory retirement but should be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge was completed and a final order was passed thereon. The said rule provides that a government servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct shall not be permitted to retire on his reaching the date of compulsory retirement but should be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge was completed and a final order was passed thereon. As pointed out earlier, no such rule has been brought to my notice and in the absence of any such rule, I am not prepared to apply the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision in the facts of the present case. 6. In view of what is said above, Ext. P2 order is set aside and the original petition is allowed.