G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a retired divisional engineer (operations ). He retired from service on 31. 7. 1997 from the respondent-corporation. Subsequent to the retirement, he was served with a memo on 24. 1. 2000 referring to certain punishments imposed while he was in service and sought for explanation for certain charges asking to show-cause as to why the punishment should not be imposed on him. On receipt of the said memo, he submitted his explanation stating that he did not commit any mistake and he cannot be imposed any punishment. Ultimately through another memo dated 24. 9. 2001, the respondents imposed punishment of 25% cut in the pension of the petitioner for a period of five years. Aggrieved by the said punishment, he preferred an appeal on 3. 11. 2001 to the second respondent, but it was rejected through the order dated 28. 5. 2002. The respondents instead of releasing the terminal benefits after completion of the punishment period of five years issued another memo on 21. 1. 2004 seeking to appoint an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry with regard to the irregularities in transformer repairs, voltage coils etc. , alleged to be committed by the petitioner while in service. On receipt of the said memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation, but the respondents instead of dropping the charges, issued revised orders appointing an enquiry officer to frame the charges against the petitioner and others. The petitioner therefore approached this court through this writ petition seeking to declare the memo dated 29. 4. 2004 issued by the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to pay all the terminal benefits. ( 2 ) THE respondents filed a counter- affidavit with the following averments in brief: ( 3 ) THE petitioner worked at suryapet for 30 years and developed vested interest against the interest of the erstwhile apseb. The A. P. lokayuktha received a complaint with serious allegations of abuse of power against the petitioner and a prima facie finding was given by lokayuktha. After receiving an investigation report, the lokayktha made the following observation in his order dated 22. 9. The A. P. lokayuktha received a complaint with serious allegations of abuse of power against the petitioner and a prima facie finding was given by lokayuktha. After receiving an investigation report, the lokayktha made the following observation in his order dated 22. 9. 2000:"considering the gravity of the matter involving more than a crore of rupees in suryapet division alone probabalising serious and grave acts of misconduct and malpractice, it is desirable the entire matter be brought to the notice of the state government for initiating immediate follow up action" ( 4 ) IN the light of the observations made by the A. P. lokayuktha, the impugned notice dated 29. 4. 2004 was issued. Since the petitioner opted for revised pension rules, 1980, he is liable for appropriate action under the said rules. Under rule 8 of the revised pension rules, the pension could be withheld. Under regulation No. 8 of the pension code, the respondents have the authority to regulate the payment of pension. The writ petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) THE respondents issued a memo dated 24. 9. 2001 imposing punishment of 25% cut in the pension of the petitioner for a period of five years in pursuance of an enquiry initiated against him while in service. The above punishment was imposed on the basis of an enquiry report dated 26. 11. 1994. The proceedings of the enquiry initiated against the petitioner while he was in service can be continued even after his retirement, and the punishment can be imposed according to the revised pension rules, 1980. Therefore, the respondents have not committed any illegality by imposing the punishment of 25% cut in the pension for a period of five years. ( 6 ) SUBSEQUENT to the date of rejection of the appeal on 28. 5. 2002, the petitioner made an application on 23. 6. 2003 to the second respondent requesting to finalize the pension payable to him on the ground that the period of punishment was over by 3. 7. 2002. ( 7 ) ON 21. 1. 2004 another memo was issued by the respondents intimating the petitioner that an enquiry officer has been appointed to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding the irregularities in the transformer repairs, voltage coils etc. When the petitioner submitted an explanation denying the allegations, a memo dated 29. 4. 2004 was issued cancelling the order dated 21. 1. 2004 another memo was issued by the respondents intimating the petitioner that an enquiry officer has been appointed to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding the irregularities in the transformer repairs, voltage coils etc. When the petitioner submitted an explanation denying the allegations, a memo dated 29. 4. 2004 was issued cancelling the order dated 21. 1. 2004 and issuing a revised order appointing an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry under regulation No. 10 (2) (a) of A. P. transco employees discipline and appeal regulations. ( 8 ) THE above regulations are applicable for those employees who were in service as on the date of initiation of the proceedings. There is no provision in the regulations for initiating disciplinary action against the retired employees. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the respondents did not initiate any disciplinary action against the petitioner for a period of seven years after the retirement, they are not entitled to initiate the proceedings at this stage. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29-4-2004 is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel also relied on certain judgments in support of his contention: ( 9 ) IN State of U. P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey, AIR 1996 SC 1656 , the Supreme Court while referring to article 309 of the constitution of India and rule 351-a of the central civil services (pension) rules, 1972 held that the departmental proceedings must be instituted before the lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct had taken place. When the alleged event of embezzlement by delinquent employee had taken place four years prior to the date of his retirement, the state disabled itself by deliberate omissions to take appropriate action against the delinquent and allowed the officer to escape from the provisions of rule 351-a of the rules. ( 10 ) IN State of Bhiar v. Mohd. When the alleged event of embezzlement by delinquent employee had taken place four years prior to the date of his retirement, the state disabled itself by deliberate omissions to take appropriate action against the delinquent and allowed the officer to escape from the provisions of rule 351-a of the rules. ( 10 ) IN State of Bhiar v. Mohd. Idris Ansari, AIR 1995 SC 1853 , the Supreme Court while referring to article 311 of the constitution of India and rules 43 (b) and 139 (a) of bihar pension rules held that the state has the right to withhold the pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for any specified period, and order recovery from a pension of the delinquent the whole or any part of the pecuniary loss caused to the government, if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct in a departmental proceeding. The Supreme Court further held that where the departmental proceedings against the employee were quashed by the high court and the employee subsequently retired from service, a notice by which fresh departmental proceedings were sought to be initiated and another notice for showing cause as to why his pension should not be withheld and the final order withholding 70% of the pension of the employee, were liable to be quashed when both the notices were based on misconduct, which was more than four years prior to the date of issuance of such notices. In such a case, no question of resuming the proceedings under Section 139 (a) and (b) would survive as the alleged grave misconduct could not be established in any departmental proceedings after expiry of four years, as such proceedings would be clearly barred by rule 43 (b) proviso (a) (ii ). ( 11 ) IN C. Ramalinga Reddy v. Non- Conventional Energy Development Corporation of A. P. Limited, 1994 (2) ALT 422, a learned single judge of this court held that when once an employee is permitted to retire, continuance of departmental proceedings against him after retirement is bad and he is entitled for terminal benefits. ( 12 ) IN the light of the specific provisions in the A. P. revised pension rules, 1980, the above decision of this court do not assume any importance. ( 13 ) IN C. Krishna Rao v. Secretary to Government PR and RD Dept. ( 12 ) IN the light of the specific provisions in the A. P. revised pension rules, 1980, the above decision of this court do not assume any importance. ( 13 ) IN C. Krishna Rao v. Secretary to Government PR and RD Dept. , Government of A. P. , 2003 (6) ALD 346 (DB), a division bench of this court while considering the scope of rule 9 (2) (b) of A. P. revised pension rules held that a show-cause notice issued for withholding the pension or gratuity after the expiry of the period of limitation of four years from the date of retirement cannot be sustained. ( 14 ) THE trend of the above decisions indicate that the disciplinary authority cannot automatically initiate disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee as and when he likes and it is subject to the limitations provided under the relevant rules. Since the impugned notice was issued under regulation No. 10 (2) (a) of A. P. transco employees (discipline and appeal) regulations, it is not applicable to the retired employees. The impugned notice is therefore liable to be quashed on this ground also. ( 15 ) THERE is no specific provision in the transco regulations for initiation of disciplinary action against a retired employee, much less after a period of seven years after the date of retirement. The counsel for the parties did not place any material to show whether the A. P. revised pension rules are applicable to the employees of transco. Even if those rules are applicable, as per rule 9 (3) of the revised pension rules, 1980, a fresh disciplinary action cannot be initiated against a retired employee four years after the date of retirement. Since the petitioner retired from service seven years back, the impugned order dated 29-4-2004 cannot be sustained. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents represented that the A. P. lokayukta has made an observation that this is a fit case to take appropriate action, therefore, the respondents have initiated action against the petitioner and as the enquiry was sought to be conducted in pursuance of the orders of the lokayukta, it cannot be quashed. ( 17 ) EVEN if there is any direction from the lokayukta for taking appropriate action, the direction is subject to the rules and regulations in force. ( 17 ) EVEN if there is any direction from the lokayukta for taking appropriate action, the direction is subject to the rules and regulations in force. When the rules do not enable the disciplinary authority to initiate the disciplinary action against the petitioner seven years after the retirement, the action of the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained. The disciplinary authority has every liberty to take such action against the petitioner permissible under law including criminal proceedings for the alleged misappropriation of the amounts however, the impugned notice cannot be sustained. ( 18 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29-4-2004 issued by the respondents is quashed. The respondents are at liberty to take such action against the petitioner permissible under law, including the criminal proceedings for the alleged misappropriation of the funds of the transco.