Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner commenced service as Full Time Menial on 1.8.1963 in the aided school managed by the 4th respondent. He was due for promotion on 1.4.85 as a clerk. The manager appointed his son, instead of the petitioner. The petitioner objected to it. Finally the petitioner succeeded and he was appointed as per Ext. P1 as the clerk. Immediately thereafter, the person who was defeated in the matter of appointment became the Manager of the School. He placed the petitioner under suspension on 22.12.93 and initiated disciplinary action for misappropriation of amounts during the period from 1.4.85 to 30.11.93. A charge sheet was issued. Disciplinary enquiry was proceeded with. The petitioner could not attend, according to the petitioner, the enquiry proceedings as he was ill and hospitalised. The petitioner was by that time due to retire onsuperannuationon31.3.95. But immediately before that, on 29.3.95 by Ext. P2 order, based on advice from the District Educational Officer, the service of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 31.3.95 subject to final orders in the disciplinary action. The petitioner was allowed to retire from the date of his superannuation while continuing under suspension without prejudice to the disciplinary action. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a revision before Government against Ext. P2. That is disposed of by Ext. P4. It was found by Government mat Ext. P2 order was not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under R.75 Chapter XIVA KER. Accordingly that order was set aside. The petitioner has by the time retired from service. It was further ordered as follows: "However the Deputy Director of Education (Kollam) will take immediate action to recover the amount defalcated and misappraisal by Shri. M. Madhavan Nair (petitioner) with interest at 18% from him. The Deputy Director of Education will also consider to effect reduction from his pension under R.59(b) Part III K.S R. as his service was not thoroughly satisfactory." The petitioner has approached this Court assailing that part of the order in Ext. P4. The petitioner submits that he has been only paid the provisional pension, DCRG shall also be paid to him. It is true that the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry when it was conducted by the Deputy Director, as according to the petitioner he was ill and hospitalised. P4. The petitioner submits that he has been only paid the provisional pension, DCRG shall also be paid to him. It is true that the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry when it was conducted by the Deputy Director, as according to the petitioner he was ill and hospitalised. It is a fact that he did not participate in the enquiry and he did not have an opportunity to defend his case. Any how Ext. P2 has been set aside. Now the question remaining is whether the Government can issue orders directing recovery of amount resulting in reduction of pension, as directed above. The petitioner is covered by the rules in Chapter XXIV-B K.E.R. as he was a member of non-teaching staff in an aided school in service on 1.10.64. R.8 thereof provides that the rules in Chapter XXVII-B relating to retirement benefits shall apply to those covered by this Chapter. R.3 of Chap. XXVII-B provides that the rule on retirement benefits including family pension and DCRG and all the conditions for grant of these benefits applicable to Government servant as laid down in Part III KSR as amended from time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply to the teachers covered by the rules in this chapter. By reason of R.9 of Chapter XXIV-B, the word "teachers" in the aforesaid rule shall be read as member of non-teaching staff as well. Therefore, in respect of a member of a non-teaching staff covered by Chapter XXIV-B, the conditions for grant of retirement benefits and gratuity as contained in Kerala Service Rules Part III shall apply. 2. R.3 of Part III Kerala Service Rule is one among the conditions regarding grant of such benefits. Therefore, that shall be applied to the non-teaching staff of aided school teachers as well. The said rule enables continuance of a departmental proceedings initiated while in service, even after retirement, for the purpose of reducing pension or recovering from pension any loss caused to the department. By Ext. P4 the Government has now empowered the Deputy Director of Education concerned to conduct the proceedings. The proceedings envisaged in Ext. P4 is for recovery of the alleged dues from pension. Therefore, there is no illegality in Ext. P4 as it is in tune with R.3 Chapter XXII-B read with r.8 Chap. XXIV-B of K.E.R. and R.3 Part III of the KSR. The proceedings envisaged in Ext. P4 is for recovery of the alleged dues from pension. Therefore, there is no illegality in Ext. P4 as it is in tune with R.3 Chapter XXII-B read with r.8 Chap. XXIV-B of K.E.R. and R.3 Part III of the KSR. Therefore the Deputy Director is perfectly competent as there was initially a disciplinary action against the petitioner even before the date of retirement to take appropriate action as directed by Government. 3. While initiating such action, the petitioner will get ample opportunity as the Deputy Director has to conduct a fresh proceedings in the same manner as is to be conducted in a departmental action which may result in dismissal. So there will be full-fledged enquiry again by the Deputy Director where the petitioner will get ample opportunity. Such proceedings shall not be merely relying on the finding already entered into. Therefore, whether the petitioner did participate in the enquiry conducted earlier or not is immaterial. 4. Of course reduction of pension under R.59(b) Part III KSR is referred to in Ext. P4. That is a matter for consideration by Government taking into account whether the service rendered by the petitioner was wholly satisfactory or not. That is not a matter to be considered by the Deputy Director. Whether that be Deputy Director can consider, inspite of R.59(b), reduction of pension, in terms of R.3 Part III KSR itself. Therefore, citing of R.59(b) in Ext, P4 does not make the order invalid. But all these proceedings shall not stand in the way of disbursement of DCRG due to the petitioner. The action taken under R.3 Part III does not empower to deduct anything from the DCRG. Therefore, there is no reason to withhold the DCRG due to the petitioner. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to pay DCRG due to the petitioner. As there was allegation of misappropriation, the petitioner cannot claim interest. That claim is rejected. Payment of DCRG shall be made within four months. O.P. is disposed of as above.