H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER after attaining the age of superannuation retired from the services of the respondent-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation limited ('corporation' for short) on 31-5-1999. Since the respondent-Corporation did not immediately settle the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, he was making repeated representations and since those representations did not yield any results, petitioner was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 22-5-2000. Since he did not get any reply even to the said notice and since the respondent-Corporation had not settled the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, he has approached this court inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent-Corporation to pay him the full pension and pensionary benefits with 18% interest from the date it became payable till the actual date of payment. ( 2 ) WITH the permission of the Court, petitioner has amended the prayer portion of the writ petition, by questioning the correctness or otherwise of the endorsement issued by the respondent-Corporation dated 12-11-2001. By the said endorsement, the respondent-Corporation has informed the petitioner that since judicial proceedings are pending against him, they are not in a position to settle the full pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE respondent-Corporation has filed its detailed statement of objections and in that has brought to the notice of the Court, that the respondent-Corporation by an official memorandum dated 17-5-2000, have informed the petitioner that they have sanctioned 50% of the pension payable to him as provided under Regulation 172 of the Karnataka electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations ('regulations' for short ). ( 4 ) IN the statement of objections, the respondent Corporation has asserted that, since judicial proceedings are pending against the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation is justified in withholding part of the pension payable to the petitioner. In justification of their assertion, they have placed heavy reliance on the language employed in Regulation 171 of the Regulations. ( 5 ) THE questions that requires to be considered and decided by this Court are:i. Whether the respondent-Corporation is justified in not settling the full pension and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner? ii. Whether the respondent-Corporation is justified in issuing the official memorandum dated 17-5-2000 in sanctioning only 50% of the pension and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner? iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to say relief? ii. Whether the respondent-Corporation is justified in issuing the official memorandum dated 17-5-2000 in sanctioning only 50% of the pension and pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner? iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to say relief? ( 6 ) TO answer the issues that I have raised for consideration, the provisions of Pension Regulations of the respondent-Corporation requires to be noticed. Regulations are framed by the respondent-Karnataka Electricity board in exercise of their powers under Section 79-C of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. These Regulations, apart from others, provide for matters relating to pay and allowances, leave, pension and travelling allowance of employees serving under the Board. Chapter IX of the Regulations provides for Regulations to regulate the service benefits admissible to the employees on their retirement or to their families in the event of their death while in service or after retirement. Omitting Regulations 168, 169 and 170 of the Regulations, which are not material for the purpose of the case, let me notice Regulations 171 and 172 of the Regulations for the purpose of deciding the issues raised by me. Regulation 171 of the Regulations read as under: "171. Withholding or withdrawal of pensions and recoveries therefrom. The Board further reserves to itself 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 the Board, if, in a departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found 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 proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the employee, be deemed to be a proceedings under this regulation 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 proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment. (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Board; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Board may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the employee during his service. (C) no such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose, or in respect of an event which look place, more than 4 years before such institution; (D) deleted. Explanation. For the purpose of this Regulation. (a) a departmental proceedings 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 proceedings, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court". Regulation 172 of the Regulations read as under:"172. (1) Where any departmental or judicial proceedings is instituted under Regulation 171 or where a departmental proceeding is continued under clause (a) of the proviso thereto against an employee who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise, he shall be paid for the period commencing from the date of his retirement to the date on which upon conclusion of such proceedings final orders are passed, a provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of his qualifying service upto the date of retirement, or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement upto the date immediately preceding the date on which he was under suspension; but no gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be paid to him until the conclusion of such proceedings and the issue of final orders thereon. (2) Payment of provisional pension made under clause (1) shall be adjusted against the final retirement benefits sanctioned to such employee upon conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension, or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period". ( 7 ) REGULATION 171 of the Regulations provides for withholding or withdrawal of pensions and recoveries therefrom. Under Regulation 171 of the Regulations, the Board has reserved to itself the right to withhold or withdraw pension either in part or in full. It has the right either to withhold pension permanently or for a specified period under certain conditions. It also has reserved its rights to recover from the pension the whole or part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Board. The condition precedent to exercise the aforesaid right by the Board is, that, the pensioner must have been found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement in a departmental enquiry proceedings or in a judicial proceedings. Clause (a) of Regulation 171 of the Regulations authorises the Board to continue with the enquiry proceedings even after an employee is retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation, if such departmental proceedings had been instituted while the employee was in service, or before the retirement of the employee from service. Clause (b) of Regulation 171 of the Regulations would provide that any departmental proceedings if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall not be instituted firstly, without the sanction of the Board and secondly, in respect of any event which had taken place more than four years before such institution. Clause (c) of Regulation 171 of the Regulations would indicate that any judicial proceedings if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall not be instituted in respect of any event/cause of action, which had taken place more than four years before such institution. Explanation is appended to this clause to explain the meaning of the expression "judicial proceedings and departmental proceedings". Explanation is appended to this clause to explain the meaning of the expression "judicial proceedings and departmental proceedings". The use of the word "deemed" in Regulation 171 (c) of the Regulations is to create a statutory fiction to bring within the net of departmental proceedings and judicial proceedings of an event or events which in the ordinary course would not have been construed as commencement of departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings. In view of this explanation, departmental proceedings is deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the employee or pensioner or on the date when the employee is kept under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceedings. If it is a criminal proceeding, the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the complaint or report of the Police Officer and in the case of civil proceedings, the date of the presentation of the plaint in the Court. By inserting the note to the proviso, the Regulation making authority has reserved the right to the pension sanctioning authority that before the pension is actually sanctioned to the pensioner, if it comes to his knowledge that the retired employee while he was in service had caused loss to the Board either by committing the act of fraud or negligence and if no departmental or judicial proceedings can be instituted at that stage, under the proviso appended to the Regulation, he can only reduce the amount of pension under the provisions of Rule 218, if the service of the employee can be held to have been not thoroughly satisfactory, though no direct penal recovery from pension is permissible. ( 8 ) AN analysis of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 172 of the Regulations would indicate, that where any departmental or judicial proceedings is instituted under Regulation 171 or where a departmental proceeding is continued under clause (a) of the proviso thereto against an employee who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise, he shall be paid the period commencing from the date of his retirement till the date the proceedings are concluded and final orders are passed, a provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of his qualifying service upto the date of retirement, or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement upto the date immediately preceding the date on which he was under suspension; but no gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be paid to him until the conclusion of such proceedings and the issue of final orders thereon. Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 172 of the Regulations would indicate that payment of provisional pension made under clause (1) shall be adjusted against the final retirement benefits sanctioned to such employee upon conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension, or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period. ( 9 ) KEEPING in view the possible construction that could be placed on regulations 171 and 172 of the Regulations, let me notice the contentions canvassed by learned Counsels for the parties. ( 10 ) ). Sri Suresh S. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that there is a total bar under Regulation 171 (c) of the regulations for the employer to institute any judicial proceedings, if such proceedings were not initiated by the employer when the employee was still in service and in the alternative, would contend that after the retirement of an employee on attaining the age of superannuation, the employer under no circumstance can institute any judicial proceedings, either civil or criminal, and further no such proceedings can be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which had taken place more than four years before such institution. In aid of this submission, the learned Counsel draws my attention to the note appended to proviso to the Regulation and then contends that pension sanctioning authority before the pension is actually sanctioned to the retired employee, even if it comes to his knowledge that the retired employee had caused pecuniary loss to the Board either by playing fraud or by sheer negligence while he was in service, he is prohibited from initiating either departmental or judicial proceedings. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, since the respondent employer had not initiated any proceedings much less judicial proceedings while the petitioner was in service, firstly, could not have initiated any judicial proceedings after the petitioner retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation. Secondly, mere filing of a complaint or first information report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate would not enable the respondent-Corporation to withhold pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner after his retirement from service. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relies upon the decision in State of Karnataka v Krishnamurthy , wherein the Court has observed that:"rule 215-A of the Rules empowers the Government to withhold payment to a retired official of death-cum-retirement gratuity and pension, if he is found, in a departmental or judicial proceedings to have caused loss to the Government. Where there is yet no determination in any departmental or judicial proceedings that he is due to the Government or that he has caused pecuniary loss to the State, the mere filing of first information report does not enable the Government to withhold such payments". The learned Counsel Sri Suresh Joshi would also submit that the words used in the statute should be understood as such without straining the language to give a different interpretation or meaning. In aid of this submission, the learned Counsel relies upon the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Aswini Kumar Ghose and Another v arabinda Base and Another2. In that, the Court has observed as under:"it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute". ( 11 ) SRI B. S. Patil, learned Counsel for respondents ably defends the case and the action of the respondents. ( 12 ) THE undisputed facts are, petitioner was an employee/officer of respondent-Corporation. ( 11 ) SRI B. S. Patil, learned Counsel for respondents ably defends the case and the action of the respondents. ( 12 ) THE undisputed facts are, petitioner was an employee/officer of respondent-Corporation. He retired from service on 31-5-1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent-Corporation has sanctioned the provisional pension only in view of the pendency of criminal proceedings. The first information report is filed against the petitioner and others by the Vigilance Cell in Crime No. 15 of 1999 before the special Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 466, 467, 471, 477-A and 511 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The primary contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, if any judicial proceedings are not instituted while an employee is in service by the employer, such proceedings cannot be instituted after the retirement of the employee and therefore, if any such proceedings are instituted by the employer, the same is null and void and on that pretext, the respondent-Corporation is not justified in withholding the pension and other terminal benefits playable to the petitioner. This submission of the learned Counsel is difficult to accept in view of the language employed under Regulation 171 (c) of the Regulations read 1. 1982 (2) Kar. L,j. Sh. N. 6 (DB) 2. AIR 1952 SC 369 : 1952 SCJ 568 with the Explanation appended to the said Regulation. The language "employed under Regulation 171 (c) of the Regulations, firstly, is clear and unambiguous. The plain meaning that could be deduced from the aforesaid Regulation is, as I have already stated, if for any reason, the employer has not instituted any judicial proceedings while the employee was in service or before his retirement from service, the employer is allowed to institute such proceedings even after the retirement of the employee from the service, but that can be only in respect of cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which had taken place four years earlier to the date of retirement of the employee. The only prohibition/embargo, in my view, that is placed on the employer in instituting any judicial proceedings against the retired employee is, that such proceeding cannot be in respect of an event which had taken place prior to four years from the date of retirement of the employee, if it is not instituted while the employee was in service or before his retirement from service. In the instant case, a criminal proceeding is instituted against the petitioner by the Vigilance Cell, Hubli, by filing first information report in Crime No. 15 of 1999 before the Special Judge, Uttara Kannada, karwar. In view of the deeming clause provided in the explanation appended to Regulation 171 (c) of the Regulations, the criminal proceedings is deemed to have been instituted against the petitioner. Nextly, the cause of action is in respect of contract with M/s. Electrical Manufacturing company Limited, Calcutta, for the construction of 220 K. V. Double circuit line between Kadra-Karwar entered by the Board with the aforesaid company sometime in the year 1997. Therefore, the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner by the employer-Karnataka electricity Board is in respect of an event, which had taken place within that four years period as envisaged under Regulation 171 (c) of the Regulations. Therefore, in my opinion, the respondent-Corporation is justified in releasing only part of the pension payable as envisaged under Regulation 172 of the Regulations by issuing the official memorandum dated 17-5-2000. Lastly, the reliance placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner on the observation made by this Court as well as Apex Court, may not assist him, since the fact situation and the provisions that the Court was considering was entirely different. ( 13 ) IN view of the above, in my opinion, petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for by him in this petition. Accordingly, the following: order i. Writ petition is rejected. Rule discharged. II. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .