JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 24.8.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No 4775/2006, the appellant Life Insurance Corporation of India ('the Corporation') and its other officials have filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. B.R. Dey, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner. 3. The relevant facts necessary for the purpose to dispose of this appeal may be summarized as follows: The respondent-petitioner was appointed as Probationary Assistant on 18.3.1963 in the appellant Corporation at its Golaghat Branch and was subsequently confirmed in the service since 15.9.1980. The respondent-petitioner was entrusted with the duty of a Cashier of the said Branch office. The Corporation having noticed certain irregularities and misappropriation of money, the respondent-petitioner was charged sheeted on 30.11.1987. The Corporation not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the respondent-petitioner against the charge sheet, appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.7.1989 holding that the charges leveled against the respondent-petitioner were proved. While the aforesaid enquiry report was under consideration of the Corporation, some other irregularities were unearthed and for which a second charge sheet was issued to the respondent-petitioner on 2.1.1996. The respondent-petitioner also replied to the said second charge sheet denying the charges leveled against him and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.8.1996 exonerating the respondent-petitioner from the second charges. But the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, decided to impose penalty upon the respondent-petitioner, a notice was issued to him on 8.8.1997. The said notice was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondent petitioner before this Court by filing Civil Rule No. 4145/1997 and not being satisfied with the judgment and order passed in the said Civil Rule, the same was carried into Writ Appeal No 335/2003 wherein by the judgment and, order dated 20.12.2005 the Corporation was directed not to act upon the notice without giving an opportunity to the respondent-petitioner to make his submission with regard to the delay in taking action insofar the first report is concerned and non-disclosure of reason for deferring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the second charge sheet. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal No. 3357 2003, the respondent-petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2004. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal No. 3357 2003, the respondent-petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2004. But this fact was not disclosed before the court at the time of disposing of the said Writ Appeal. 4. After his retirement, the respondent-petitioner in terms of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 20.12.2005, submitted his reply to the show cause notice proposing to impose penalty upon him. It is to be mentioned herein that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, there was an interim order in favour of the petitioner. While the matter was rested at that stage, the respondent-petitioner prayed for release of the pensionary benefits and the Corporation having not done any thing, he again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No 4775/2006 praying for a direction to pay his retirement benefits including the pensionary benefit and to dispose of his representation stated to have filed on 5.1.2006. The said writ petition having allowed by the learned Single Judge, the aggrieved Corporation has preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. Dey, learned senior counsel, submits that the Corporation is empowered by its regulations to withhold or withdraw a pension of a part thereof and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation if in any departmental or judicial proceeding the concerned employee is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. Accordingly, the action of the Corporation in deducting the misappropriated amount from the respondent-petitioner cannot be said to be unjust and improper and it has got sanction of law holding the field. It is further contended that there has been delay in taking action on the report of the first enquiry wherein the charges have been leveled against the respondent-petitioner were proved and in the meantime for some more irregularities committed by the respondent-petitioner and unearthed by the appellants, the Corporation had to initiate action by issuing a second charge Sheet against him. The learned Counsel further contended that the respondent-petitioner having filed Civil Rule No 4145/97 and thereafter Writ Appeal No. 335/2003 and during that period there having an interim order in favour of the respondent-petitioner, the matter could not be proceeded with. Finally it is contended that the action of the Corporation in the instant case is within the parameter of law and justice requiring no interference of this Court. Finally it is contended that the action of the Corporation in the instant case is within the parameter of law and justice requiring no interference of this Court. 6. Par contra, Mr. Das gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner, submits that the writ petitioner having retired from service and the Corporation not having taken any action while the petitioner was in service, no action is permissible under the law after his retirement and accordingly, the action of the Corporation to deduct the amount from the retirement and pensionary benefits of the respondent-petitioner cannot be permitted under the law and on this count the findings of the learned Single Judge require no interference. 7. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties received our due consideration. The facts narrated above relating to filing of Civil Rule No. 4145/97 and Writ Appeal No. 335/2003 and passing of the interim order therein is not in dispute. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent-petitioner was found guilty of serious misconduct as per the enquiry report dated 30.11.1987 although on subsequent enquiry, the respondent-petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, but the disciplinary authority did not accept the same and in terms of the direction in Writ Appeal No. 335/2003, the respondent-petitioner submitted his representation against the action of the disciplinary authority for not accepting the second enquiry report. 8. The respondent-petitioner having retired from service on 31.5.2004, it is not open for the disciplinary authority to take any other disciplinary action against the respondent-petitioner except recovering the pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation. The retirement and pensionary benefits payable to the respondent-petitioner are regulated and guided by a set of Rules known as "the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995". Rule 48 of the Rules which is relevant for the purpose of the present appeal is quoted herein below : 48. Recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation. - (1) The Competent Authority may withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner. Recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation. - (1) The Competent Authority may withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner. is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service: Provided that the Executive Committee shall be consulted before any final orders are passed: Provided further that departmental proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service, shall, after the retirement of the employee, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service : Provided also that departmental or judicial proceedings, if not initiated while the employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution. (2) Where the Competent Authority orders recovery of the pecuniary loss from the pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of the employee: Provided that where a part of pension is withhold or withdrawn, the amount of pension drawn by a pensioner shall not be less than the minimum pension or the family pension. 9. In view of the provisions of Rules quoted, above, the Corporation is within its jurisdictional authority in proposing to withhold and recover from the pension of the' respondent-petitioner a part of the pension for the pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service subject to consultation with the Executive Committee before passing any final order. In the instant case, the Corporation before proposing to withhold the amount in question also consulted with the Executive Director of the Corporation and accordingly, the provisions of the Rule 48 are fully complied with. In the instant case, the Corporation before proposing to withhold the amount in question also consulted with the Executive Director of the Corporation and accordingly, the provisions of the Rule 48 are fully complied with. From the sequence of events and the materials placed before this Court, we are of the view that the Corporation has not abandoned the findings of the first Enquiry Officer on the first charge sheet issued against the respondent-petitioner. As regards the second enquiry, the respondent-petitioner submitted his representation in terms of the liberty granted to him in the earlier rounds of litigation. But the Corporation did not accept the same. 10. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the Corporation was within its jurisdictional authority empowered by law to deduct the amount of pecuniary loss caused to the it by the respondent-petitioner. Accordingly, the action taken by the Corporation cannot be held to be illegal, unjust or improper on any count. In the result, this, appeal stands allowed and the writ petition is dismissed. 11. No costs. Petition dismissed.