Judgment :- K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, C.J. 1. The appellant was an employee of the respondent-corporation and he retired from service on 31.5.1999. On a day prior to his retirement, he was served with three charge memos alleging certain irregularities. The main allegation was, the appellant was not vigilant in supervising the tax collection and thereby caused loss to the respondent-municipality. The appellant was permitted to retire from service, subject to the disciplinary proceedings. The appellant challenged the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that as he was retired from service, the respondent has no right to continue the disciplinary proceedings. The learned single Judge declined to interfere with the | impugned proceedings and hence this appeal. 2. We heard the appellants counsel. Counsel for the appellant contended that as the appellant has retired from service, the ‘employer’ and, ‘employee’ relation has been snapped and therefore, the respondent has no authority to continue the disciplinary proceedings and reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court Bhagirithi Jana v. Board of Directors, C.S.F.C. (1999) 3 S.C.C. 666 . In that case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant therein under Regulation 44 of the Orissa Financial State Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975. Charge sheet was served on him on 22.7.1992. But enquiry could not be completed against him till his retirement on 30.6.1995. He was relieved on 1.7.1995 “without prejudice to the claims on the corporation”. The appellant contended that neither enquiry could be mentioned nor any amount deducted from his provident f und after his retirement. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the enquiry stood lapsed after his retirement and that the appellant was entitled to balance salary after deducting subsistence allowance already paid to him. This decision was taken for the reason that there was no specific provision existed in the Orissa Financial State Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975 for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent on the determination of misconduct in department enquiry: nor was there any provision for continuance of departmental enquiry after superannuation. In the absence of any such provision, it was held that the corporation had no legal authority to make any deduction in the appellants retirement benefits. There was also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after the appellants retirement nor was there any provision that in case misconduct was established, a deduction would be made from retired benefits. In the absence of any such provision, it was held that the corporation had no legal authority to make any deduction in the appellants retirement benefits. There was also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after the appellants retirement nor was there any provision that in case misconduct was established, a deduction would be made from retired benefits. It was in this background, the Supreme Court held that the appellant had retired and there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits. Payable to him and that the enquiry lapsed on his retirement. 3. In another decision in State of Maharashtra v. K.B. Mayamdar 1988 2 S.C.C. 52, it was held that department enquiry can be held against the Government servant even after superannuation and that the pension can be reduced on the basis of proved charges of misconduct. The respondent therein retired from the post of Supply Officer under the Government of Maharashtra. The charges were framed against him, the first charge was that he was deputed to hold an enquiry against a sugar dealer but he had made a farce of the enquiry and tried to shield the dealer. The second charge related to his alleged conspiracy with when the dealer and his son with ulterior motive and abetting them in the disposal of sugar in black market. Enquiry was held and the respondent was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. The first charge was found to have been established and the second charge was partially proved. By this time, the respondent retired from service and the collector took a lenient view and recommended reduction of his pension to the extent of Rs. 1 per month. The State Government accepted the findings and passed the impugned order by reducing the pension by 50% per month. The respondent filed writ petition and the Bombay High Court allowed the petition quashing the impugned order on the ground that the State Government had no authority in law to take disciplinary proceedings against the respondent as he had already retired from service. Commenting on the High Court judgment, the Supreme Court observed. “The High Court committed a serious error in holding so. The purpose of the enquiry was not to inflict any punishment but to determine the respondents pension, in accordance with Ss. Commenting on the High Court judgment, the Supreme Court observed. “The High Court committed a serious error in holding so. The purpose of the enquiry was not to inflict any punishment but to determine the respondents pension, in accordance with Ss. 188 and 189 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. These Rules have expressly preserved the State Governments power to reduce or withhold pension by taking proceedings against a government servant even after his retirement. The validity of the rules was not challenged either before the High Court or before the Supreme Court”. However, the Supreme Court held that the reduction of pension by 50% was too harsh and reduced the penalty. 4. In the instant case, the appellant herein being an employee of the corporation, the general Rules regarding Tamil Nadu Pension Rules are applicable to the instant case. Rule-D (2) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules says that if any departmental proceedings are instituted against the Government servant while he was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall after the final retirement of the Government servant be deemed to be proceedings under the rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they are commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. It is true after the retirement of an employee, the authorities cannot impose punishments like removal or dismissal of the Government servant. However, the authority can very well pass orders under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules regarding the payment of pension and so there is a specific provision which permits continuance of the disciplinary proceedings, we do not think that the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is warranting interference by this court. 5. The counsel for the appellant further submits that the Rules only apply when the pension orders are given in favour of the appellant and as there is no order passed granting pension to the appellant, the said Rules will not apply. We do not think the said contention is correct. The pension order must not have been passed due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. 6. We do not think the said contention is correct. The pension order must not have been passed due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. 6. We make it clear that it is upto the appellant to approach the authorities for release of provisional pension and the authorities shall pass appropriate orders after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, at least within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Writ Appeal is disposed of. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 1391 of 2000 is dismissed.