H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) PARTIES to the us in this petition is governed by n. g. e. f. officers' conduct, discipline and appeal rules. Apart from others, these rules provide a special provision for proceedings against a retired/re-employed persons. The said Rule is as under:"36-A: special provision for proceedings against a retired/re-employed persons: i. A departmental proceedings as per Provisions of these rules can be instituted against a retired/re-employed officer/employee of the company in respect of an event which took place during his employment in the company but not more than 4 years before such institution. II. A departmental proceeding, if instituted while the retired officer/employee was in service whether before his retirement or during re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the concerned officer/employee, be deemed to be proceedings under these rules and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the required officer/employee had continued in service. III. While such departmental proceedings are instituted or continued against a delinquent retired officer/employee, the right of withholding the payment of gratuity or any other terminal benefits to such an officer/employee and payment in this regard will be authorised only after the conclusion of the proceedings and issue of final orders thereon". ( 2 ) THE ordinary Rule is that, power to take departmental action against an employee comes to an end after his retirement from service. an exception to this Rule is Rule 36-a of the conduct, discipline and appeal rules of the respondent-company. It is settled principle that if the words of the statute are precise and unambiguous, then no more is necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The object of the court always is to ascertain the intention of the legislature from the language it has used. ( 3 ) CLAUSE i of Rule 36-a provides for institution of the proceedings after retirement of an officer. The Rule imposes a restriction against the institution of any departmental proceedings in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, if the proceeding is to be instituted against an officer/employee of a government servant, who has finally retired from service. The Rule imposes a restriction against the institution of any departmental proceedings in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, if the proceeding is to be instituted against an officer/employee of a government servant, who has finally retired from service. This clearly demonstrates that after the lapse of four years from the date of the retirement of an employee/officer, if no enquiry is instituted by the employer, then the retired officer acquires an immunity and he cannot be punished for any of his acts or omissions done four years prior to his retirement. clause ii of Rule 36-a is distinct from clause i and provides for the continuation of the departmental proceedings which were instituted while the officer in service. The restriction on the institution of departmental action envisaged under clause i of the rules cannot be read into clause ii of the rules. Clause iii of the rules is not noticed since it is unnecessary for the purpose of the case. ( 4 ) THE language employed in clause i of Rule 36-a is clear and unambiguous. The employer is competent to initiate the departmental action against a retired employee/officer for the acts of omissions and commissions said to have been committed by the officer while in service of an event which has taken place within the four years before retirement of the officer. In other words, no departmental proceedings can be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. In the absence of any other Rule, the departmental proceedings are deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the retired officer. In my opinion, the purpose of this Rule seems to be not to dig into his old actions and then punish him for any event which has taken place more than four years before the inquiry was instituted. ( 5 ) KEEPING in view the possible interpretation that could be given to the Rule, let me now briefly notice the fact situation. Petitioner was the director, rotating machine division, when he retired from service on 1-6-1993 from the respondent-company. Earlier to it, he was working in the capacity of general manager, motor factory division, from 9-12-1987 till 20-11-1989 and he was the executive director of the said division from 21-11-1989 till 5-4-1992. Petitioner was the director, rotating machine division, when he retired from service on 1-6-1993 from the respondent-company. Earlier to it, he was working in the capacity of general manager, motor factory division, from 9-12-1987 till 20-11-1989 and he was the executive director of the said division from 21-11-1989 till 5-4-1992. Nearly after six months after his retirement from service, he was served with articles of charge memo dated 7/12-1-1994. The charge memo was accompanied by statement of imputations, list of documents and list of witnesses in support of the charge against the retired officer. The disciplinary authority of the respondent-company has directed the petitioner to offer his explanation within one week from the date of the receipt of articles of charge memo as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for the alleged misconduct said to have been committed during the period 1987-88. since the entire case of the petitioner and his learned counsel revolves round the omission noticed by the disciplinary authority in the statement of imputation, in my opinion, it is necessary to extract the articles of charge dated 7/12-1-1994. Therefore, it is reproduced and the same reads as under:"n. G. E. F. limited, Bangalore-38 ref: cmd/ird/021/94 dated: 7-1-1994 articles of charge Sri c. l. viswanath, director (rmd) (retd.) Is hereby informed that the following articles of charge are levelled against him. he was general manager (mf division) from 9-12-1987 till 20-11-1989 and executive director (mf division) from 21-11-1989 till 5-4-1992 and director (rmd) from 6-4-1992 till his retirement i. e. , 1-6-1993. In other words, he was completely in charge of mf division (which is inclusive of wm-sc) from 8-12-1987 till 1-6-1993. para 8 of the standing instructions No. 04. 3084. 0112, dated 2-5-1984 clearly stipulate that wm-sc shall ensure the return of raw materials, scrap left-overs, tools, fixtures supplied to ancillary units. M/s. Chihlal stampings was one of the ancillary units on which the company was placing orders to supply the stampings. wm-sc placed orders on M/s. Chinlal stampings right from 1986 till October 1991 for the manufacture of stampings. 0112, dated 2-5-1984 clearly stipulate that wm-sc shall ensure the return of raw materials, scrap left-overs, tools, fixtures supplied to ancillary units. M/s. Chihlal stampings was one of the ancillary units on which the company was placing orders to supply the stampings. wm-sc placed orders on M/s. Chinlal stampings right from 1986 till October 1991 for the manufacture of stampings. N. g. e. f. had been issuing raw materials (silicon steel prime sheets etc.) To M/s. Chinlal stampings and the said unit should have returned the left-overs, meltings and the corners to n. g. e. f. however, it is observed that M/s. Chinlal have failed to render accounts periodically and have neglected to return the raw materials/left-overs and also failed to pay the value of the same. Finally, the value of the materials which were not returned had been quantified to the tune of Rs. 70. 58 lakhs as shown in the statement enclosed (Annexure-I ). since the value of the unreturned materials to the company was very high and also there has been dereliction of duties from the concerned officials, the matter has been investigated. Sri c. l. viswanath has ignored the relevant standing instructions and also the observations of statutory auditors. He had also given instructions to the effect that the payment will be looked after by the factory and the advice of the costing Section was not required in this regard. It is also alleged that Sri c. l. viswanath as head of the entire motor factory division has totally failed to take necessary steps to formulate cutting plan which was the main basis for receiving the left-overs etc. , after finished products were ready. Sri c. l. viswanath is very well aware that silicon sheets of prime quality were supplied to M/s. Chinlal stampings and the left-overs to be returned was of high value. It is also perused from the records that the statutory auditors while considering the accounts for the financial year 1987-88, have commented upon the system of accounting of materials lying with fabricators/ancillaries, materials given on loan basis etc. They also desired the reconciliation statement regarding materials used/lying with the ancillary units. In fact, the observation of the statutory auditors was being repeated every year. In this regard, the then cmd issued an office note ref. They also desired the reconciliation statement regarding materials used/lying with the ancillary units. In fact, the observation of the statutory auditors was being repeated every year. In this regard, the then cmd issued an office note ref. Md/sec/12-25/526/90-91, dated 30-11-1990 highlighting serious lapses and desired that regular schedule be prepared and reconciled and get the same duly audited and put up to cmc. The matter was also discussed time and again, but no positive action was taken by Sri c. l. viswanath in this regard despite the serious observation of the statutory auditors and also the written instructions of the then chief executive of the company. had the timely action been taken at least after the observation of statutory auditors, the financial loss could have been reduced considerably. Therefore, Sri c. l. viswanath has utterly failed in his duties in protecting the interest of the company and became responsible for the loss to the tune of Rs. 70. 58 lakhs. the above acts of Sri c. l. viswanath if proved would amount to misconduct under clause 5 (v), 5 (ix) and 5 (xx) of the n. g. e. f. officers' conduct, discipline and appeal rules, which reads as follows: 5 (v): acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company. 5 (ix): neglect of work or negligence in the performance of duty. 5 (xx): commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour. therefore, he is hereby called upon to offer his explanation within one week from the date of receipt of articles of charge as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for the aforesaid alleged misconduct, failing which, the action as deemed fit would be taken against him without further reference. sd/- chairman and managing director. Sri c. l. viswanath, director (rmd) (retd.)". ( 6 ) THE charge memo came to be replied by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered, after appointing an inquiry officer to enquire into the allegations made in the charge memo, has issued notice of enquiry dated 21-8-1995. sd/- chairman and managing director. Sri c. l. viswanath, director (rmd) (retd.)". ( 6 ) THE charge memo came to be replied by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered, after appointing an inquiry officer to enquire into the allegations made in the charge memo, has issued notice of enquiry dated 21-8-1995. It is at this stage, petitioner is before this court inter alia seeking a writ to quash the articles of charge memo dated 7/12-1-1994 and notice of enquiry dated 21-8-1995 as one without jurisdiction, without authority of law, arbitrary and wholly void and secondly, that the first respondent- authority has no jurisdiction to institute disciplinary proceedings. ( 7 ) SRI s. g. bhagwan, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that since the disciplinary authority intends to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner for the events, which had taken place beyond four years from the date of retirement, the initiation of proceedings is not only invalid and illegal but also contrary to the special provision in the conduct, discipline and appeal rules of the respondent-company. In support of this contention, the learned counsel entirely relies on the allegations contained in the articles of charge memo and also relies upon the observations made by the apex court in the case of state of Bihar and others v mohd. Idris ansari. ( 8 ) SRI. subramanyam, learned counsel for respondent-company sought to justify the initiation of departmental action against the petitioner/retired employee/officer. The respondents have also filed a detailed statement of objections resisting the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. ( 9 ) THE only issue that requires to be considered and decided is whether the competent authority was justified in initiating departmental enquiry proceedings against the petitioner/retired officer in respect of an event which had taken place more than four years before such institution? ( 10 ) THE answer to this precise legal issue firstly depends on the subject-matter of the charge memo and secondly, on the construction of the special rules in the conduct, discipline and appeal rules of the respondent-company. ( 10 ) THE answer to this precise legal issue firstly depends on the subject-matter of the charge memo and secondly, on the construction of the special rules in the conduct, discipline and appeal rules of the respondent-company. Insofar as the interpretation of the rules is concerned, I have already noticed, in view of the clear language employed in the rules, the employer is permitted to initiate the departmental actions against the employee/officer of the company after his retirement from service only of the events which has taken place four years prior to his retirement from service and no departmental proceedings can be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. ( 11 ) INSOFAR as facts are concerned, the admitted position is, petitioner was general manager of motor factory division from 9-12-1987 to 20-11-1989 and executive director of motor factory division from 21-11-1989 till 5-4-1992 and director, rotating machine division, from 6-4-1992 till his retirement. According to respondent-company, petitioner was in charge of motor factory division from 8-12-1987 till 1-6-1993. the subject of the charge memo is causing financial loss to the company by negligence in the performance of duty at least after the observations of the statutory auditors while considering the accounts for the financial year 1987-88 onwards. The allegations is a continuous lapse on the part of the petitioner while he was completely in charge of motor factory division. The disciplinary authority accuses petitioner that he utterly failed in his duties as a general manager, executive director and the director of the division in protecting the interest of the company and became responsible for the loss to the tune of Rs. 70. 58 lakhs for the entire period and those acts of omissions and commissions would be acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company, neglect of work or negligence in the performance of duty and lastly, commission of any act subversive of discipline and good behaviour and if proved, would amount to misconduct under clause 5 (v), 5 (ix) and 5 (xx) of the n. g. e. f. officers' conduct, discipline and appeal rules. A reading of the charge memo would clearly indicate that the respondent-company intends to inquire into financial loss caused by the petitioner not just of an event pointed out by the statutory auditors for the financial year 1987-88 but not taking timely action atleast after the observation of the statutory auditors for the financial years 1987-88 and thereby failing in protecting the interest of the company and causing loss to the company to the tune of Rs. 70. 58 lakhs. The charge memo had directed the petitioner to offer his explanation after receipt of the charge memo as to why departmental action should not be taken for the acts of misconduct falling under clause 5 (v), 5 (ix) and 5 (xx) of the n. g. e. f. officers' conduct, discipline and appeal rules and not just for an event which had taken place during financial year 1987-88. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct in his submissions that the institution of departmental proceedings as per the memo dated 21-8-1995 and continuance of the same are without jurisdiction, illegal and without authority of law and the institution of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution. It is, therefore clear that the authorities had competence to initiate the departmental enquiry proceedings against the petitioner. ( 12 ) IN the case of charges framed in a disciplinary enquiry, the courts can interfere only if on the charges framed read with imputation or particulars of the charges, no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, courts cannot go into correctness or truth of the charges. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for disciplinary authority to go into. Therefore, since I have come to the conclusion that the charge memo issued is not in violation of Rule 36-a of the rules, I can not interfere with the initiation of departmental actions against the petitioner by the respondent-company. ( 13 ) IN the result, petition fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. The disciplinary authority of the respondent-company is directed to confine himself for the events which have taken place four years before the retirement of the petitioner from service. ( 13 ) IN the result, petition fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. The disciplinary authority of the respondent-company is directed to confine himself for the events which have taken place four years before the retirement of the petitioner from service. Further, the disciplinary authority is directed to complete the proceedings as expedi- tiously as possible and at any rate within six months from the date of the Order, provided petitioner co-operates with the enquiry. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly, --- *** --- .