JUDGMENT K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. First, I deal with O.P. No.10922 of 1944. The challenge in this original petition is against Ext. P6. That is the final order issued in a disciplinary proceedings initiated as per Ext. P2 dated 12.10.1990. Ext. P6 was passed on 21.6.1994. By that time, the petitioner had retired from service on 30.6/1993. By Ext. P6, it is ordered to recover an amount of Rs.26,149/- being the cost of gunny bags from the petitioner pensionary claims. In Ext. P2, there was a charge that the petitioner while holding the post of Block Development Officer failed to remit the sale proceeds out of the said gunny bags to the District Rural Development Authority. Thus, there was allegation of loss to Government. The petitioner had replied to Ext. P2 charge sheet while he was in service. A show cause notice was later on 27.11.1993 after the retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner replied to that show cause notice as well. It is after that Ext. P6 has been issued directing recovery as mentioned above. No Enquiry had been conducted before passing Ext. P6. 2. The disciplinary proceedings initiated while the employee was in service can be continued after his retirement as if it is a proceedings under R.3 Part III K.S.R. for the purpose of withholding or withdrawing of pension or apart of it or for ordering recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by the delinquent. Of course, in this case, there was allegation of pecuniary loss caused by the petitioner as is discernible from Ext. P2 memo of charges which was issued prior to the petitioner retirement. No final orders have been passed until his retirement on 30.6.1993. So, the proceedings initiated as per Ext. P2 shall be deemed to be a proceedings instituted in terms of R.3 Part III K.S.R. by reason of clause (a) to the proviso to the said rule. But that shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before the institution of the proceedings. In other words, a proceedings commenced before the retirement of the delinquent for the purpose of recovering from the pension such pecuniary loss when the incident alleged had taken place more than four years of institution of such proceedings. In other words, a proceedings commenced before the retirement of the delinquent for the purpose of recovering from the pension such pecuniary loss when the incident alleged had taken place more than four years of institution of such proceedings. In this case, the incident alleged is in respect of the year 1985-86, far beyond the four years limit made mention of in the proviso to R.3 Part III K.S.R. So, on that ground itself, Ext. P6 is incompetent. 3. There is another ground as well as to quash Ext. P6. Any proceedings continued under R.3 or instituted under R.3 shall be conducted in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceeding in which an order of dismissal from service be made in relation to the employee during his service. That means, even for the purpose of withholding or withdrawing pension or recovery from pension any pecuniary loss caused by the delinquent, procedure as contained in rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules has to be followed. 4. Admittedly, as is discernible from Ext. P6 there was no enquiry nor any enquiry report is referred to in Ext. P6. Therefore, the procedure as contemplated in the proviso to R.3 has not been followed, to issue Ext. P6 directing recovery of amount from the petitioner. Ext. P6 is therefore quashed. 5. The petitioner had earlier filed an original petition No.5113 of 1994, challenging Ext. P11 marked therein. That also is the final order issued in another disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Ext. P11 was passed on 21.2.1994, again after retirement of the petitioner. Ext. P11 also directs recovery of excess cost of food grains amounting to Rs.3,32,552/-. No enquiry has been conducted before passing Ext. P11 nor any enquiry report is referred to in Ext. P11. Ext. P11 is bad on the same reason as the impugned order in O.P. No.10922 of 1994. Consequently, Ext. P11 is also quashed. Both the Original Petitions are allowed.