Judgment :- M. Ramachandran, J. The petitioner is a retired Chief Engineer of Kerala Government. In the course of her service, during the last phase, she had been posted to Project I, Kozhikode on 30.6.1995. She was thereafter transferred as Chief Enginer, Project III, Kottarakara and joined the new station on 12-2-1996. On 30-9-1996 she was transferred and posted as Chief Engineer (Designs), IDRB, Trivandrum and had retired from service on 31.01.1997. 2. On the eve of her retirement, on 29-01-1997 a First Information Report is seen to have been registered at the Vigilance Police Station, Palakkad. She was the second accused therein and the report disclosed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sec. 402 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. A copy of the FIR is produced as Ext. P1 and it is seen to have been forwarded to the Enquiry Commissioner and Sub Judge, Kozhikode. As could be seen from Ext. P1, the allegation is that the accused had made wrongful gains and caused corresponding loss to the government, in the matter of certain contract works relating to Kuriyarkutty-Karappara Irrigation Project. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of the report of the Senior Audit Officer some time during 1996. 3. After the petitioner's retirement, the pension papers had been put up, but full pension to her was not sanctioned. The reason shown was that the amount of commuted value of pension could be arrived at only on finalizing the vigilance case that was pending. Against this stand taken by Ext. P4 the petitioner had filed Ext. P5, but since no response was forthcoming, the Original Petition had been filed. 4. The petitioner submits that she has been implicated in the vigilance case without any justification and the attempt has been to show how she was innocent as regards the allegations which led to the vigilance enquiry. The grounds taken are also of similar nature, but at the time of hearing Sri. Anil Narendran had taken me to the legal aspects of the claims especially relying on the decision of this Court, reported in 1998 (1) KLT 117 (Paulose v. State of Kerala). The submission was that under Part III Rule 3 of the Kerala Service Rules, pensionary benefits could have been withheld only in a case where departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings had been instituted against an officer. The submission was that under Part III Rule 3 of the Kerala Service Rules, pensionary benefits could have been withheld only in a case where departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings had been instituted against an officer. It has been pointed out that the petitioner had been permitted to go on retirement and there were no departmental proceedings against her. However, since the Government had relied on the First Information Report and was urging the plea that a judicial proceeding had been instituted, the attempt was to show that the situation at hand could not be described as 'judicial proceedings' as envisaged under the sub-rule. 5. Mr. Justice C.S. Rajan, in the case cited above, had held that the complaint referred to in Clause (b) of the explanation to Rule 3 relates to the situation contemplated in Sec. 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the report of the police officer is relatable to Sec. 190(1)(b) thereof. The learned Judge had pointed out that Sec. 173 deals with report of the police officer on completion of investigation. Chapter XII of the Code, it had been pointed out, referred to four types of reports at different stages of investigation, they being (i) preliminary report under Sec. 157, (ii) report from a subordinate police officer to the Station House Officer under sec. 168, (iii) report in writing by a police officer to the Station House Officer under sec. 168, (iii) report in writing by a police officer in forwarding the accused under sec. 170, which will amount to a report on which Magistrate can take cognizance and (iv) final report under sec. 173. Ultimately, the Court had held that no such report in terms of sec. 173 of the Code had been submitted to the Magistrate and therefore clause (b) of the explanation to Rule 3 has no application. Taking this view, the Court had held that it was a case where the petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefits and withholding of the same was not warranted. Counsel points out that the writ appeal filed from the above judgment had been disposed of by a Division Bench upholding the stand taken by the learned single Judge, by judgment had been disposed of by a Division Bench upholding the stand taken by the learned single Judge, by judgment dated 9-2-2000 in W.A. No. 387 of 1998. Counsel points out that the writ appeal filed from the above judgment had been disposed of by a Division Bench upholding the stand taken by the learned single Judge, by judgment had been disposed of by a Division Bench upholding the stand taken by the learned single Judge, by judgment dated 9-2-2000 in W.A. No. 387 of 1998. The counsel had also invited my attention to another decision reported in 2001(2) KLT 770 - Kesavan Nair v. Director of Health Services where it had been held that merely by registration of a crime by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau a final report is not deemed as made and therefore withholding of DCRG was not permissible . 6. On such authorities the petitioner submitted that there was no report made by the competent officer and there were therefore no judicial proceedings as contemplated by the rule and she is entitled to the pension and pensionary benefits, as it could not be withheld. Counsel had also invited my attention to an order passed by this Court dated 21-12-2001 in Crl. M.C. No. 8745 of 2002. In fact the case related to the FIR that had been referred to in this Original Petition. A report had been submitted as contemplated under sec. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the prosecution submitted that there were grave discrepancies in the report and had therefore sought permission for submission of an additional report. The Enquiry Commissioner had rejected the application and the Crl. M.C. had been filed by the State in the aforesaid context. A learned Judge of this Court had, relying on the judgment in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) [AIR 1979 SC 1791] held that statutory rights and duties of the police for conducting investigation of the crime are not circumscribed by any power of superintendence or interference by the Court, nor was any sanction required from the Court to empower the police to investigate into a cognizable offence. Where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police could express their regard and respect for the Court by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation. Therefore, when the investigating agency found that there is need for further investigation, permission for conducting investigation has to be granted. Where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police could express their regard and respect for the Court by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation. Therefore, when the investigating agency found that there is need for further investigation, permission for conducting investigation has to be granted. The counsel points out that it can safely be assumed that on the date of the above judgment (21-12-2002), there was no report as contemplated by sec. 173(2) and the principles laid down squarely come to the help of the petitioner as respects claims urged in this Original Petition. 7. The petitioner may not be justified in adopting a stand that there was no report as contemplated under sec. 173(2) of the Code at all. A report is already there and the reports that had been permitted to filed can only be treated as additional reports supplemental to the reports already on record. Therefore it can now be safely assumed that there is a report and for the purpose of rule 3 judicial proceeding is deemed to be instituted and we cannot put back the clock by any effort. The Government Pleader points out that Kesavan Nair's case pertained to gratuity, and that too had been passed overlooking the express terms of Note 2 of Rule 3, and other relevant rules. The above submission appears to be correct. In this context, certain other provisions also could be adverted to. 8. Powers have been reserved by the Government by rule 3 to withhold or withdraw a pension permanently or for a specified period. The rule is extracted herein below : "3. The above submission appears to be correct. In this context, certain other provisions also could be adverted to. 8. Powers have been reserved by the Government by rule 3 to withhold or withdraw a pension permanently or for a specified period. The rule is extracted herein below : "3. The Government reserve to themselves 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 if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement : Provided that -- (a) Such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the employee, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service; (b) Such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before the retirement or during his re-employment, (i) Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government; (ii) Shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and; (iii) Shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceeding in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the employee during his service; (C) No such judicial proceeding , if not instituted while the employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted, save with the sanction of the Government in respect of action which arose or an event which took place of a cause more than four years before such institution; This amendment takes effect from 14th November, 1996. (d) the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed . (d) the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed . Explanation :- For the purpose of this rule - (a) a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the employee or pensioner or if the employee has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date, and (b) a Judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted - (i) in the case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and (ii) in the case of a civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the court." Though explanation is extracted as above, Notes 1, 2 and 3 following the rule and the three rulings given by the Government, are not however reproduced here. As could be seen from an analysis, the main part of the rule deals with the right/authority of the government. The wordings of the proviso is intended to safeguard the departmental proceedings and judicial proceedings. Right to resort to such proceedings are not prevented for the reason that the officer has gone on retirement. The deeming provision in respect of the departmental proceedings and the judicial proceedings are made with this end in view. The right of the government is declared in the first part of the rule. The government has a right to recover from pension, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if in a departmental or judicial proceeding the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. This unequivocally means that the power can be exercised only after such a finding is entered into by the appropriate authority, and not before such a finding comes to being . Therefore, only because of the lodging of the FIR or even by a report envisaged under sec. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Government does not receive a pre-emptive right for withholding or withdrawing the pension or any part of it. The Government has to wait for a finding to be entered into by the appropriate authority. Till such time a finding is entered into as regards guilt, misconduct or negligence, the withholding or withdrawing of pension is not contemplated by the provision. The Government has to wait for a finding to be entered into by the appropriate authority. Till such time a finding is entered into as regards guilt, misconduct or negligence, the withholding or withdrawing of pension is not contemplated by the provision. The principle is equally applicable in the case of departmental proceedings as well. This is what is gatherable from Rule 3. 9. But it is seen that what is given as a right by this rule is watered down by the succeeding provisions. Rule 3A while prescribing payment of provisional pension, though uses the expression inadvertently that 'where a departmental or judicial proceedings is instituted under Rule 3', imposes restriction of other payments. We cannot also ignore Pension (Commutation) Rules as codified in Appendix X and pensioner situated like the petitioner, by paragraph 3 is expressly prohibited from getting the pension commuted. The rule making authority might originally have understood the rule in one manner but subsequent changes have brought about the mischief. Ruling No. 2, authorized by G.O. (P) 523/67/Fin. Dated 5-12-1967, is a pointer and it is to the following effect : "According to proviso (a) under this rule, departmental proceedings, if instituted while the employee or pensioner was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the employee be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee or pensioner had continued in service. A doubt was raised as to whether in the case of an employee or pensioner whose case falls within the purview of the proviso and proceedings against whom were instituted by an authority subordinate to Government, order for withdrawal/withholding of pension can be passed by the subordinate authority on the conclusion of the proceedings. The function of the Disciplinary Authority is only to reach a finding on the charge and to submit a report recording its findings to the Government. Government will then consider the findings and take a final decision. The function of the Disciplinary Authority is only to reach a finding on the charge and to submit a report recording its findings to the Government. Government will then consider the findings and take a final decision. In case Government decide to take further action under Rule 3 the Government will serve the person concerned with a show-cause notice specifying the action proposed to be taken under this rule and the person concerned will be required to submit his reply to the show-cause notice within such time as may be specified by the Government. The Government will consider the reply in consultation with the Public Service Commission and pass necessary orders in the name of the Governor. The above procedure in regard to the issue of show-cause notice will also apply to a case where the Governor functions as the Disciplinary Authority'. Thus Government's decision under Rule 3 were envisaged only after findings by the judicial authority. A show cause notice is also contemplated . The rule required passing of a final order and before passing such orders, sub-rule (d) mandates consultation with the Public Service Commission. The procedural formalities were therefore explicit, but what has been given by the right hand has been taken by the left hand. 10. It is not unusual for disciplinary/proceedings to be dragged on indefinitely. Judicial proceeding invariably is completed after years. Even in the present case, the petitioner had retired from service in January, 1997, but the judicial proceedings are at the initial stage and a report is awaited and trial is to follow only later. I may refer to the opening portion of Sec. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which states that "Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay". After retirement a government servant practically becomes helpless as it may not be possible for him to pursue other profession or earn a livelihood. When normally he is entitled to pensionary benefits, it cannot be denied to him. The proceedings before the departmental authority or the judicial authority may continue for years for reasons other than those attributable to the retired government servant. It cannot be envisaged that indefinitely one has to forego benefits which otherwise he is entitled to. The provision rather emphasizes the requirement and necessity to complete the proceedings as expeditiously as is possible, in the interests of everybody. It cannot be envisaged that indefinitely one has to forego benefits which otherwise he is entitled to. The provision rather emphasizes the requirement and necessity to complete the proceedings as expeditiously as is possible, in the interests of everybody. After the culmination of the proceedings, the pension payments could be appropriately interfered with, but not before. But, as pointed out earlier, as at present the rules operate in a harsh manner, perhaps not as originally envisaged. Since the petitioner has not challenged the vires of the offending rules, it is not appropriate for this Court to examine the validity of the restrictions. The Original Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.