SOUMITRA SEN ( 1 ) THE present writ application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the issuance of a charge sheet against him and for withholding or withdrawl of pension from the month of July, 2003. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed in the post of Municipal Engineer-in-Chief by the Mayor-in-Council at a meeting held on 8th May, 1998. He attained the normal age of superannuation on 30th November, 1998, but, got an extension of the period of service for another six months, and therefore, remained in service till May, 1999. From December, 1998 the petitioner started receiving his pensionary benefits, but, according to the petitioner, the rate at which the pension was paid was much less than his actual entitlement. The petitioner has also alleged that though he was entitled to receive 2. 5 Lakhs Gratuity he was paid only a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs and the remaining Rs. 50,000/- is yet to be paid. ( 3 ) VIDE Memo, dated 20th May, 2003 the petitioner was served with a show-Cause notice, wherein it was alleged that while working as engineer-in-Chief of the respondent authority, the petitioner had adopted unfair means in getting acceptance of tender of a contractor which is the second lowest tender instead of accepting the lowest tender submitted by another contractor, thereby subjecting the respondent authority to a heavy loss. ( 4 ) THE petitioner duly replied to the said Show-Cause notice by letter dated 16th June, 2003, wherein, it was, inter alia, contended that the exigency of the situation demanded acceptance of a te'nder within a time bound programme. It was further pointed out in the said reply to the Show-Cause notice that the credentials of the lowest tenderer was not very clear and that inspite of written request the lowest tenderer could not furnish proof of their credentials as per tender requirement. The petitioner in the Show-Cause notice clearly stated that the petitioner was a reporting authority who reported everything to the accepting authority i. e. the Mayor-in-Council who duly endorsed the acceptance of the tender submitted by the second lowest tenderer in accordance with the rules of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The petitioner in the Show-Cause notice clearly stated that the petitioner was a reporting authority who reported everything to the accepting authority i. e. the Mayor-in-Council who duly endorsed the acceptance of the tender submitted by the second lowest tenderer in accordance with the rules of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. ( 5 ) BY another Memo, dated 18th July, 2003 issued by the Municipal commissioner, the petitioner was informed that an enquiry would be held against him under Regulation 9 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulation, 1985 and a charge sheet was also issued along with the said Memo, containing an article of charge which is as follows: -Article of Charge-l it is revealed from the audit para No. 2. 18 of C. A. G. 's report for the year 1999-2000, Volume II (Civil) that the KMC suffered a loss of rs. 52 Lakhs in connection with execution of 7 M. G. semi underground reservoir at Tallah due to acceptance of the second lowest tenderer M/s. Rajpath Contractor and Engineers (P) Ltd. in lieu of the lowest officers M/s. Nap Construction (P) Ltd. Accordingly, sri Manoj Kanti Mazumdar was issued show-cause notice under memo No. Con/com/33/2003-4 dt. 20/05/03 u/r 40 (1) of the D. C. R. B. Regulation, 1982 of the KMC as to why his pension should not be withheld for his Involvement in the said irregularity. The reply of sri Mazumdar to the said show-cause notice is not satisfactory and can in no way counter the points raised by CAG. The actions of the then C. M. E. (Pandd) Sri Manoj Kanti Mazumdar and his department are not at all defendable. As such, Sri Mazumdar is hereby charged with adopting unfair means in getting acceptance of the tender of m/s. Rajpath Contractor (P) Ltd. which led to a huge financial loss to KMC. His action amounts to a gross misconduct which is improper and unbecoming of a Corporation employee and is violative of regulation 3 (3) of the Calcutta Mpl. Corporation Officers' and employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1991. ( 6 ) IT appears from records that in the tender notice bearing No. Pand. D/ 60/96-97 which was for an estimated tender value of rs. 3,53,00,288/- contained two conditions as regards the credentials of the tenderer viz. (a) Annual Turnover of the tenderer would not be less than Rs. 3. 53 cr. Corporation Officers' and employees' (Conduct) Regulation, 1991. ( 6 ) IT appears from records that in the tender notice bearing No. Pand. D/ 60/96-97 which was for an estimated tender value of rs. 3,53,00,288/- contained two conditions as regards the credentials of the tenderer viz. (a) Annual Turnover of the tenderer would not be less than Rs. 3. 53 cr. during any financial year within the last three years ending March, 1996. (b) The tenderer should have the experience in constructin of water retaining structure of value of at least Rs. 1. 75 cr. in a single tender, within the last three years. ( 7 ) ELEVEN tenderer had participated, out of which four were taken into consideration for preparation of comparative statements. From the said statement it appears that one M/s. Nap Construction (P) Ltd. (NCPL) offered the lowest price and one M/s. Rajpath Contractors and engineers Pvt. Ltd. (RCEPL) was the second lowest tenderer. ( 8 ) RCEPL lodged a complaint that NCPL who was the lowest tenderer did not fulfill all the eligibility criteria with regard to the credentials. Upon being asked to produce supporting documents, NCPL produced audited accounts for the year 1994-95 which was shown to be more than 4 cr. They also produced a certificate indicating that they were doing similar type of job of tender value of rs. 1. 4 cr. ( 9 ) IT further appears from records that the opinion of the Law Department was sought for having regard to the complaint made by RCEPL which indicated that acceptance of tender of NCPL might entail a legal procedure. ( 10 ) IT also appears from records that the matter of accepting the tender was placed before the Mayor-in-Council and was duly ratified and was recommended for approval. The acceptance of tender was also subsequently approved by the Corporation. ( 11 ) BEFORE accepting the tender of RCEPL the petitioner placed the matter before the concerned authority by making a comparative statement of both the candidates. It was pointed out that NCPL could not produce certificate with regard to the experience in construction of water retaining structure of value at least of Rs. 1. 75 cr. in tender within the last three years. It was further pointed out that the turnover statement submitted by the Chartered Accountant was misguiding and does not qualify as a certificate of annual turnover. 1. 75 cr. in tender within the last three years. It was further pointed out that the turnover statement submitted by the Chartered Accountant was misguiding and does not qualify as a certificate of annual turnover. ( 12 ) THE respondent authorities while issuing the charge sheet has also withheld payment of pension. The petitioner challenged the impugned action of the respondent authority by filing the instant writ application. By an order dated 22nd December, 2003 this Court held that the respondent authorities are not entitled to withhold the pension payable to the petitioner. The respondent authorities were, however, given liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding but no final order was to be passed without obtaining the leave of the Court. ( 13 ) ALLEGING violation of the said order by reason of alleged non- payment of pension, the petitioner filed a contempt application. The respondent authorities after completing the disciplinary proceeding filed an application praying for leave to communicate the final order passed in the disciplinary proceeding, ( 14 ) AGAINST the above factual backdrop, all the three applications have been taken up for hearing. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that pension payable to the petitioner cannot be withheld in terms of Regulation 40 (1) of the Corporation of Calcutta Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit)Regulations, 1982 (in short DCRB Regulation ). It was submitted that the respondent authorities have never passed any order in terms of the said Rule which is set out as under: -"40. Withholding of pension in cases of conviction and misconduct -1) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grunt of pension. The pension sanctioning authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. 2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of law, action under sub-regulation (1) shall be taken in the light of the Judgement of the Court relating to such conviction. 2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of law, action under sub-regulation (1) shall be taken in the light of the Judgement of the Court relating to such conviction. 3) (a) In a case not falling under sub-regulation (2) if the pension sanctioning authority considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order under sub-regulation (1), serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit, within 15 days the receipt of the notice or such further time not exceeding 15 days as may be allowed by the pension sanctioning authority, such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal, and (b) take the representation, if any, submitted by the pensioner under clause (a) into consideration. " ( 15 ) IT was further submitted that since the petitioner was appointed by the Mayor-in-Council to the post of Municipal Engineer-in-Chief, the Municipal commissioner by himself could not have issued the charge sheet against the petitioner as the Mayor-in-Council being a higher authority, who was the appointing authority, can only initiate disciplinary proceeding. ( 16 ) IT was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the proceeding initiated against him is clearly mala fide in nature and is extremely belated as the basis on which the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner took place in the year 1996-97. The petitioner had retired in May, 1999 and the charge sheet was issued on 18th July, 2003. The petitioner submitted that the proceedings were initiated against him on the basis of the report filed by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the year 1999 which was completed in the year 1999, but however, the Show-Cause was issued by the municipal Commissioner on 20th May, 2003 long after the submission of the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General and retirement of the petitioner from service. ( 17 ) ON behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner was not a departmental proceeding, but is a proceeding for withholding or withdrawing the pension of a retired employee in accordance with the provisions of DCRB Regulation in particular Regulation 40 as mentioned above. ( 17 ) ON behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner was not a departmental proceeding, but is a proceeding for withholding or withdrawing the pension of a retired employee in accordance with the provisions of DCRB Regulation in particular Regulation 40 as mentioned above. ( 18 ) IT was submitted that Regulation 40 operates only in a case where an employee has retired and his subsequent conduct after retirement is also to be taken into account. It was therefore submitted that misconduct of an employee during the tenure of service detected after his retirement can be a ground for withholding pension in accordance with Rule 40 sub-rule 3 (a ). ( 19 ) IT was further submitted that the DCRB Regulation has not stipulated any time limit within which proceeding has to be initiated from the date of commission of misconduct, Therefore, the delay in initiating proceeding against the petitioner should not be taken into account. It was submitted that delay in initiating departmental proceeding in case of an employee in service should not be equated with delay in initiating proceeding under Regulation 40 in case of a retired employee. ( 20 ) ON behalf of the respondents it was further submitted that the municipal Commissioner is the appropriate authority to issue the charge sheet being the pension sanctioning authority. It was submitted that the petitioner was given appointment to the post of Municipal Engineer-in-Chief for a period of six months on ad hoc basis, which was not even regularized. ( 21 ) FROM Regulation 40 it clearly appears that future good conduct of an employee is an implied condition for grant of pension but what is good conduct in explained in Regulation 40 (1 ). In the event if a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct the pension sanctioning authority may by order in writing withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period, ( 22 ) THE language of Regulation 40 (1) makes it clear that an order for withdrawing or withholding pension would arise only in case of a conviction of a serious crime or the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct. ( 23 ) REGULATION 40 (3) (a) makes it clear that when the pension sanctioning authority considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, before passing the order under sub-regulation 1 a show cause notice is required to be issued. ( 24 ) IN the instant case, the notice dated 20th May, 2003 issued by the municipal Commissioner is inconsonance with Regulation 40 (3) (a ). But in the instant case after issuing a show cause notice under Regulation 40 (3) (a) no order under Regulation 41 has been issued. Therefore, in my opinion, without passing an order in accordance with the Regulation payment of pension to the petitioner could not have been withheld. ( 25 ) IT is true that Regulation 40 does not mention any time limit for initiation of proceeding. The future good conduct of an employee who is receiving pension with regard to getting involved in a criminal case is quite different from committing a misconduct during his tenure and its subsequent detection. Even long after retirement an employee who is receiving pension may commit a serious crime for which he may be convicted. Under the circumstances the authority concerned is empowered under Regulation 40 (1)to withhold or withdraw the pension payable to such an employee. But in case of a misconduct committed during the tenure of the service, which is detected subsequently, the concerned authority cannot wait indefinitely and initiate proceeding against a retired employee long after his retirement. The latches on the part of the authority to detect the misconduct within a reasonable time cannot be condoned altogether. ( 26 ) REGULATION 48 of the DCRB Regulations makes it clear that any matter which is not covered by these regulations shall be decided mutatis-mutandis on the basis of the provision in this behalf in the regulations of the state Government. For the sake of convenience Regulation 48 is set out hereunder: -"48. Amendment, modification etc.- Subject to the approval of the Corporation of Calcutta these regulations may be amended or modified mutatis-mutandis on the model of the corresponding regulations prevailing in the State Government. Any relaxation to these regulations shall require consultation with W. B. P. S. C. /m. S. C. as the case may be and sanction by the State Government. Amendment, modification etc.- Subject to the approval of the Corporation of Calcutta these regulations may be amended or modified mutatis-mutandis on the model of the corresponding regulations prevailing in the State Government. Any relaxation to these regulations shall require consultation with W. B. P. S. C. /m. S. C. as the case may be and sanction by the State Government. Any matter not covered by these regulations shall be decided mutatis-mutandis on the basis of the provision In this behalf in the regulations of the State Government. " ( 27 ) THEREFORE, from the above it is clear that wherever there is any absence of any Regulation the same shall he decided on the basis of Regulations applicable to State Government employees. ( 28 ) THE relevant Regulations of the State Government is contained in regulation 10 (1) (b) (i) and (ii) of the West Bengal Services DCRB Rules, 1971 which is as follows : -"such departmental proceedings if not instituted while the Officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his reemployment - (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor. (ii) shall not be in any respect of any event which took place more than four years before such Institution ; and. " ( 29 ) THEREFORE, it appears to me that since Regulation 48 implies that in certain circumstances the Regulation governing the State Government employees shall apply, it cannot be contended that there is no time limit for initiating a proceeding under Regulation 40. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the tender was accepted in the year 1998 and the show cause notice was issued in the year 2003 long after the prescribed period of four years. ( 30 ) EVEN on facts I am not at all convinced with the case made out against the petitioner by the respondents. The Comptroller and Auditor General had found certain defects in the matter of accepting the second lowest tenderer. But the comment of the Comptroller and auditor General indicates that it is the mayor-in-Council who had accepted the tender and there was no allegation against the petitioner on that score, ( 31 ) IT is well settled that in a given situation a lowest tenderer can be rejected. But the comment of the Comptroller and auditor General indicates that it is the mayor-in-Council who had accepted the tender and there was no allegation against the petitioner on that score, ( 31 ) IT is well settled that in a given situation a lowest tenderer can be rejected. In the instant case as it appears from records that NCPL being the lowest tenderer could not submit relevant papers in support of his credentials. Many other applicants were refused issuance of tender paper on the ground of eligibility criteria of not having sufficient credentials. Furthermore, the past performance of NCPL with some other work, which was awarded to them, was also taken into consideration. It was found that their performance was not satisfactory. ( 32 ) HAVING regard to the exigency of the situation the petitioner being a highly qualified Engineer recommended awarding of contract to RCEPL expecting that the work would be completed within the specified period. Such recommendation was accepted by the Mayor-in-Council and ratified by the corporation. From the record it also appears that there were differences of opinion in the department along with the law department as to whether the tender should be awarded in favour of NCPL. Since the work had to be completed within a specified time without delaying the matter further and apprehending a legal action, which would have further delayed the proceeding, the petitioner took a pragmatic decision to recommend awarding of tender in favour of RCEPL. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner as a technical person was only the recommending authority but had no power to actually award the contract, which was done by the Governing Body of the Corporation i. e, the Mayor-in-Council. ( 33 ) THE rate quoted by NCPL being the lowest tenderer was below 11. 75% of the estimated value. The petitioner as a highly qualified Engineer felt that a rate, which is 11. 75% below a schedule rate of 1993-94 quoted in the year 1997, was not a workable rate. ( 34 ) IT was also felt by the petitioner as a technical expert, that the concerned work was of a much more complicated nature than construction of a new reservoir under normal circumstances as it involved renovation of an existing reservoir which was leaking profusely since it was commissioned in 1974. ( 34 ) IT was also felt by the petitioner as a technical expert, that the concerned work was of a much more complicated nature than construction of a new reservoir under normal circumstances as it involved renovation of an existing reservoir which was leaking profusely since it was commissioned in 1974. The repairing work could not be undertaken, as the existing reservoir could not be decommissioned, as it would have badly affected water supply to the city. A new underground reservoir was constructed in the year 1996 but the pump house was not ready for supply of water from the newly constructed reservoir. It was then decided that the water from the leaky earlier reservoir would be diverted to the newly constructed reservoir and then repaired till the new reservoir was commissioned by installing a pump house. Under the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner felt that the rate quoted for such a work could not be less than the construction of a new reservoir. After having considered all the technical aspect as well as the lack of credentials of NCPL the petitioner recommended accepting of tender of RCEPL, which was the second lowest tenderer. ( 35 ) THIS factor appears to be completely missing from the evaluation made by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The reasoning of an auditor is quite different from the reasoning from a technical expert. ( 36 ) THE contention of the respondents that the Municipal Commissioner is authorized to issue the order Withholding of sanction appears to be correct. An order under Regulation 40 (3) (a) is required to be passed by the pension sanctioning authority, which in the instant case, according to the respondent, is the Municipal Commissioner. Moreover, the proceeding initiated under Regulation 40 is not really a departmental proceeding against an employee while in service. Therefore, the established rule that the appointing authority can only be the disciplinary authority, does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. ( 37 ) IT was contended on behalf of the respondents that Regulation 48 of the D. C. R. B. Regulations has no manner of application in the instant case. It was submitted that Rule 10 (1) (b) (i) and (ii) of D. C. R. B, Rules, 1971 does not contemplate a proceeding to be initiated under Regulation 48. ( 37 ) IT was contended on behalf of the respondents that Regulation 48 of the D. C. R. B. Regulations has no manner of application in the instant case. It was submitted that Rule 10 (1) (b) (i) and (ii) of D. C. R. B, Rules, 1971 does not contemplate a proceeding to be initiated under Regulation 48. In my opinion, regulation 48 cannot be considered to be an independent Regulation de hors the other provisions of the Regulation. The general rule of interpretation suggests that the Regulations have to be read as a whole to derive the meaning intended to be conveyed therein. Unless the Regulation itself makes it clear that such regulation is to operate notwithstanding the other Regulations, then a harmonious construction of Regulations must be made. If the interpretation of the Regulations and the Rules given on behalf of the respondents is accepted, it would mean that even in case where the latches and/or negligence and/or misconduct of the employee is capable of being detected within a reasonable time, the authority concerned can sit tight over the matter for an indefinite period and then initiate proceeding invoking Rule 48 alleging misconduct alleged to have been committed long before the actual retirement of the employee. It is true that simply because an employee has retired, he cannot be held guilty of misconduct committed during the tenure of his service, but at the same time it is the duty of the authorities concerned to detect such misconduct within a reasonable time. What is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be contained in Rule 10 (1) (b) (i) and (ii) of the D. C. R. B. Rules, 1971. ( 38 ) ON factual score, the respondents have sought to justify the issuance of the charge sheet by contending that since the petitioner actually worked for an extended period till May, 1999 and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General having been submitted in the year 2000, the show cause notice, which was issued on 20th May, 2003 was within the four years' period of limitation as contained in the said Rule mentioned hereinabove. The said submission appears to be misconceived. The submission of report of the comptroller and Auditor General is of no consequence. All facts relating to the tender was before the authorities concerned since 1998. The said submission appears to be misconceived. The submission of report of the comptroller and Auditor General is of no consequence. All facts relating to the tender was before the authorities concerned since 1998. If the authorities in the year 1998 thought that the issuance of tender was justified merely because the comptroller and Auditor General has given a different opinion in the year 2003, the earlier action of the authorities cannot become unjustified. The Municipal commissioner is not an independent authority, but is a part and parcel of the calcutta Municipal Corporation being the executive head. It appears to me that the Municipal Commissioner was activated only when the Comptroller and Auditor general gave its opinion. Further more, explanation (a) of Rule 10 (1) (b) (ii) of the west Bengal Services D. C. R. B. Rules, 1971 makes it clear that a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the officer on pension, which in the instant case is 20th May, 2003, which is admittedly more than four years from the date of retirement. ( 39 ) THE contention of the respondents that the petitioner remained in service up to May, 1999 in also in doubt. The actual date of superannuation of the petitioner was 30th November, 1998. He was given a new post as Director general (Project Planning) till May, 1999. From the concerned post he had actually retired on 30th of November, 1998 as that was his age of superannuation. The extended period of service was for a special purpose, which should not be taken into account while calculating the period of delay to initiate proceedings, which should be calculated from the date on which an employee is actually required to superannuate in accordance with rules. ( 40 ) IT is significant to point out here that an Inquiry Officer appointed by the respondent authority had gone into the matter with regard to the article of charges levelled against the petitioner. Evidence of the parties was taken. The points for determination before the Inquiry Officer were as follows: - (i) Whether any extraneous factor was at play while accepting the second lowest tender of R. C. E. P. L. ? Evidence of the parties was taken. The points for determination before the Inquiry Officer were as follows: - (i) Whether any extraneous factor was at play while accepting the second lowest tender of R. C. E. P. L. ? (ii) Whether C. M. E. (Pandd) took the decision himself and did not pay due regard to the opinion of the Law Department of K. M. C. ? (iii) Whether C. M. F. A. 's suggestion was by-passed? (iv) Whether without rate analysis, C. M. E. (Pandd) rejected the lowest tender as unworkable? (v) Drawing any comparative statement only against the second and third lowest bidders without taking into consideration the first lowest tenderer, though both first and second bidders had technical irregularities. (vi) If during tender process the case was reviewed properly, Kolkata municipal Corporation could avoid huge financial loss? ( 41 ) AFTER considering all the materials on record and all the above points for determination, the Inquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner could not be proved. ( 42 ) THOUGH the Municipal Commissioner has sought to give some justification while issuing the second show cause notice while disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, I do not find any substance in such reasoning. It appears that the Municipal Commissioner has unnecessarily given much credence to the opinion of the Law Department whereas there is some amount of doubt in the opinion of the Law Department also as to whether the offer of the lowest tenderer should be accepted without any doubt. The Municipal commissioner in the second show cause notice has stated that since the petitioner had actually given his opinion in favour of the second lowest tenderer, his proposal was approved by the highest authority. This reasoning is also thoroughly misconceived, if not mala fide in nature. The approval with regard to acceptance of tender of the lowest tenderer was placed before the highest body of the Corporation. If the Municipal Commissioner suggests that the highest body of the Corporation have acted without any application of mind, then I do not wish to express my opinion on that. Before the Mayor-in-Council1he relevant facts were placed. There were enough materials before the Council to come to an incorrect finding and/or opinion. If the Municipal Commissioner suggests that the highest body of the Corporation have acted without any application of mind, then I do not wish to express my opinion on that. Before the Mayor-in-Council1he relevant facts were placed. There were enough materials before the Council to come to an incorrect finding and/or opinion. It is incorrect on the part of the Municipal commissioner to suggest in the second show cause notice that there was no hint of controversy given by the petitioner in his recommendation, which was placed before the Mayor-in-Council. In the agenda, which was placed for consideration, the relevant facts were duly placed. The comparative rates were clearly disclosed. If the Mayor-in-Council thought it fit to accept the tender given by the lowest tenderer on the facts as disclosed, in my opinion, it is highly improper on the part of the municipal Commissioner to suggest that the relevant facts were not placed before the mayor-in-Council and that the proposal was blindly accepted. It appears to me that the action of the Municipal commissioner is nothing but a witch-hunt. Since the Comptroller and Auditor general has made certain adverse remarks with regard to acceptance of the lowest tender, a scapegoat has to be found and the petitioner was targeted. No explanation has been given as to why the accepting authority was absolved from all responsibilities while the petitioner, who was only to recommend, has been held guilty, that too by the Municipal Commissioner after disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer. The subjective appreciation of evidence by the municipal Commissioner, in my opinion, in completely unfounded, if not malicious in nature. ( 43 ) THE petitioner has relied upon the following decisions in support of the proposition that a belated charge sheet cannot be sustained: - (i) (1993) 1 Cal LJ 371 (Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty v. State of West bengal and Ors. ). (ii) AIR 2006 SC 207 (Mahadevan v. M. D. , Tamil Nadu Housing board ). (iii) (2001) 1 Cal LJ 54 (Chandi Charan Mahato v. State of West bengal ). ). (ii) AIR 2006 SC 207 (Mahadevan v. M. D. , Tamil Nadu Housing board ). (iii) (2001) 1 Cal LJ 54 (Chandi Charan Mahato v. State of West bengal ). ( 44 ) THE decision of Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty (supra) has held that after retirement from the service disciplinary proceeding cannot be continued as after retirement there cannot be any disciplinary control over an employee who had already retired except for the purpose of denying the retiring benefit which is his property and with which he will have to maintain the last days of his lite. In the said case, the Division Bench on facts found that the charges were vague and relate to a period, which was about 14 years prior to the retirement, and, accordingly, the same was held to be stale. The Division Bench was also of the view that to deprive an employee of the hard earned benefit in his old age would be destructive to the principles of social and economic justice which is the very fabric from on our Constitution is woven, ( 45 ) IN the instant case also, the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner with regard to the alleged act of misconduct which took place more than 4 years prior thereto,. ( 46 ) THE decision of P. V. Mahadevan (supra) was relied upon in support of the proposition that if disciplinary enquiry is initiated after inordinate and unexplained delay the entire disciplinary proceedings get vitiated. I have dealt with hereinbefore as to the purport of Regulation 40 and the time prescribed for initiating proceeding thereunder after having construed the various rules and regulations. In this case also there is an inordinate delay in initiating proceeding against the petitioner. ( 47 ) THE decision of Chandi Charan Mahato (supra) was relied on behalf of the petitioner in support of the proposition that the High Court is vested with plenary powers to quash a proceeding if the allegation on the basis of which such proceedings have been initiated does not disclose any cause of action. The said judgment has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of setting aside of charge-sheeton the basis of non-disclosure of cause of action cannot and does not arise. The said judgment has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of setting aside of charge-sheeton the basis of non-disclosure of cause of action cannot and does not arise. The matter had been gone into by the respondent authorities and the finding of fact is already on record on the basis of which I have come to the finding that the conclusion of the respondent is perverse and not tenable. ( 48 ) ON behalf of the respondents, the following decisions were relied upon as instances where orders were passed against employees even after retirement either reducing or withdrawing pension: -1) (1988) 2 SCC 52 (State of Maharashtra v. M. H. Majumdar) ; 2) AIR 1998 SC 2709 (Union of India and Ors. v. B. Dev) ; 3) (1993) 1 SCC 47 (Jarnail Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of Home affairs and Ors.) ; 4) (2002) 1 SCC 405 (Union of India and Anr. v. P. D. Yadav ). ( 49 ) THE decision of M. H. Majumdar (supra) was relied upon for the proposition that the respondent had the authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner after retirement from his service. In the said case, it has been held that the proceeding initiated was not to inflict any punishment but to determine the pension in accordance with the relevant rules, viz. Rules 188 and 189 of Bombay Civil Services Rules, which is somewhat similar to Regulation 40 in the instant case. ( 50 ) IT is significant, to mention here that, in the case of M. H. Majumdar (supra) the recommending authority recommended reduction of pension to the extent of Rs. 1/- per month. The State Government accepted the finding but passed the impugned order reducing the pension by 50 per cent. The Hon'ble supreme Court considered the said reduction too harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the respondent, which was an allegation of corruption. In the instant case, there is no allegation of corruption or misappropriation of fund but is based only on lack of judgment. Under these circumstances, the entire pension payable to the petitioner was withheld which appears to be thoroughly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. ( 51 ) THE decision of 6. Dev. (supra) was relied upon for the proposition that pension can be withheld for committing grave misconduct. Under these circumstances, the entire pension payable to the petitioner was withheld which appears to be thoroughly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. ( 51 ) THE decision of 6. Dev. (supra) was relied upon for the proposition that pension can be withheld for committing grave misconduct. In the said case, the allegation against the employee was of unauthorized absence and disobedience of Government order to join duty in India together with lack of devotion and conduct unbecoming of Government servant. In the instant case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had not followed a Government order or that he lacked devotion, to his job or duty. Under these circumstances, i am of the opinion that the said judgment is of no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 52 ) THE decision of Jarnail Singh (supra) was relied upon for the same proposition with regard to the authority of the respondent to withhold pension. In the said case, the question arose as to whether the expression 'pension' in rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 included 'gratuity' to enable withholding of payment of gratuity in addition to withholding the pension amount. After construing the various rules the Supreme Court had held that the expression 'pension' would also include 'gratuity'. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the said issue, strictly speaking the said decision of Jarnail singh is of not much assistance to the respondent. ( 53 ) THE decision P. D. Yadav (supra) was relied on behalf of the respondent in support of the proposition that pension is not a bounty but a deferred portion of services rendered which could be taken away by authority of law. In the said decision the Supreme Court has upheld the order forfeiting pension on the facts and circumstances of the said case. The proposition of law is well settled that in given circumstances the authority concerned is empowered to forfeit pension. But, in the facts and circumstances of this case, i have not found any justifiable reason to permit the respondent authority to withdraw and/or withhold the pension payable to the petitioner. ( 54 ) FOR the reasons as aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the writ petition should succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The charge sheet issued against the petitioner is hereby set aside. ( 54 ) FOR the reasons as aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the writ petition should succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The charge sheet issued against the petitioner is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to pay the allowable pension to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order failing which the petitioner shall he entitled to interest on the accrued amount at the rate of ten percent per annum till the payment is made. In view of the order passed hereinabove, the application filed by the respondent being CAN No. 6953 of 2004 is dismissed. No order as to costs. .