V. K GUPTA, D. P. KUNDU, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal can be disposed of on a very short point. The appellant at the relevant time was an employee of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. He admittedly retired from the service of the Trust on January 31, 1994. On June 2, 1997 an office order was issued by the Calcutta Improvement trust, respondent 1 in this appeal whereby a charge-sheet was served upon the appellant. This office order was accompanied by the copy of the charge-sheet, Annexure 1 being article of the charge- sheet, Annexure 2 being Statement of Imputations, Annexure 3 being list of witnesses and Annexure 4 being the memo of evidence. The appellant challenged the initiation of disciplinary proceedings through the aforesaid charge-sheet issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing a writ application in this Court but the appellant's contentions before the learned single Judge failed who vide judgment dated April 13, 1998, dismissed the Writ application. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT 1, in the exercise of the power conferred upon it by Section 31 of the calcutta Improvement Trust Act framed calcutta Improvement Trust Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1988. It is under these Rules generally speaking that detailed provisions are made for grant of pension and other retirement benefits to the employees. Rule 54 of 1988 Rules reads as under:"54. (1) Subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees these rules may be amended or modified mutatis mutandis on the model of the corresponding provisions of the West bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement benefit) Rules, 1971 as amended from time to time. (2) Any matter not covered by these Rules shall be decided mutatis mutandis on the basis of the provision in this behalf in the aforesaid rules. " ( 3 ) THERE is no provision in the aforesaid 1988 Rules whereby disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against an employee of the calcutta Improvement Trust after his retirement. (2) Any matter not covered by these Rules shall be decided mutatis mutandis on the basis of the provision in this behalf in the aforesaid rules. " ( 3 ) THERE is no provision in the aforesaid 1988 Rules whereby disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against an employee of the calcutta Improvement Trust after his retirement. Since in the present case admittedly, the appellant retired on January 31, 1994, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated on June 2, 1997, that is almost 31 years after his retirement, 1988 Rules not being applicable, on the force of Rule 54 (supra), respondent 1 based the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on West bengal Services (Death-cum- Retirement benefit) Rules, 1971. Rule 10 of 1971 Rules reads as under:"10. Right of the Governor to withhold pension in certain cases.- (1) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or 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, it the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or negligence, during the period of his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: provided that: (a) 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 article 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 departmental proceedings, 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 four years before such institution; and. . . . . " ( 4 ) CONTENTIONS were raised by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that Rule 10 of 1971 Rules cannot be made applicable to disciplinary proceedings in respect of the appellant on the premises based on Rule 54 of 1988 Rules, Rule 10 of 1971 Rules cannot be made applicable to such disciplinary proceedings. . . . . " ( 4 ) CONTENTIONS were raised by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that Rule 10 of 1971 Rules cannot be made applicable to disciplinary proceedings in respect of the appellant on the premises based on Rule 54 of 1988 Rules, Rule 10 of 1971 Rules cannot be made applicable to such disciplinary proceedings. We have no intention however of entering into any discussion with regard to any such question regarding the applicability or non-applicability of Rule 10 of 1971 Rules since we propose to allow this appeal on a limited question of the proceedings having admittedly been initiated four years after the alleged occurrence of the alleged events which admittedly formed the basis of the charge-sheet issued on June 2, 1997. In that view of the matter therefore, we proceed on the presumption and premises that Rule 10 of 1971 rules may be attracted, without however returning any positive finding on this controversial question. ( 5 ) EVEN if 1971 Rules are, therefore, presumed to be applicable to the case of the appellant, it clearly comes out from Cl. (ii) of sub-rule (1) (b) of Rule 10 that departmental proceedings after retirement cannot be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before the institution of such departmental proceedings. The charge-sheet, article of charges and the statement of imputations conspicuously omit to mention any date, month or year as to when the alleged act of misdemeanour or misconduct was allegedly committed by the appellant. Since the appellant is alleged to have invested the money of respondent 1 in U. T. 1 for earning commission by illegitimate means, in annexure 4 to the memo of charge-sheet containing the list of documents we find that this alleged transaction had taken place on May 18, 1993 on the own showing of the respondents. It appears to us thus that to circumvent the aforesaid mandatory requirement that proceedings cannot be initiated beyond the period of four years, knowing fully well that the alleged questionable action of the appellant occurred allegedly on may 18, 1993, the respondents deliberately and purposely kept the charge-sheet, the article of charges and the statement of imputations vague by omitting to mention the date, month or the year. It according to us amounts to sheer abuse of process of justice and should not have been indulged in by the respondents. ( 6 ) FROM what we have, therefore, found, it is abundantly clear that even if Rule 10 of 1971 Rules is presumed to be applicable in respect of the employees of Calcutta improvement Trust (we reiterate that we are not deciding this issue at all), the initiation of proceedings against the appellant was patently bad in law since it was in violation of even Rule 10 (supra), because the proceedings were initiated after the expiry of four years from the date, the alleged event allegedly took place. This alone is a good enough ground to hold the initiation of such proceedings as unconstitutional. ( 7 ) THE judgment of the learned single judge is set aside. The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant are quashed and set aside with all consequences throughout. ( 8 ) WE also direct that the appellant shall be given all his retirement benefits from january 31, 1994, i. e. the date of the retirement within a period of two months from today. The payment of all sums due to the appellant on account of grant of retirement benefits will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from January 31, 1994. If however, the amount (principle plus interest) is not paid to him within two months from today, the rate of interest shall be increased to 18 per cent per annum from January 31, 1994 itself till the amount is actually paid. ( 9 ) THE appeal is allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000. ( 10 ) ALL parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.