JUDGMENT 1. Instant special appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing order of learned single Judge dated 11.4.2002 upholding disciplinary enquiry initiated after his retirement on 31.12.1996 vide memorandum dated 29.10.1998 U/r 16 of CCA Rules, ("Rules,1958" ) read with R.7 of Raj. Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (Rules 1996). However, after the charges were found proved by the enquiry officer as is evident from enquiry report dated 2.7.2001, penalty was inflicted upon him by the competent authority of stoppage of 50% pension & 50% gratuity vide order dated 23.5.2002. 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant it will be necessary to glance through a few relevant background facts.That the appellant while holding the post of Chief Medical Health Officer, Beawar stood retired from service on attaining age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.1996 and after retirement he was served with memorandum along with charges & statement of allegations U/r 16 of Rules, 1958 read with R.7 of Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 ("Rules,1996" ) dated 29.10.1988 and the allegation against him was that while he was working as CMHO, Beawar during 1996-97 admissions were made of ANM trainees in contravention of state policy and despite the availability of candidates against the seats reserved for SC/ST, admissions were made of ineligible candidates from OBC category and it was the gross misconduct committed and his action was in contravention of directives of the Government. 3. After the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant he approached this Court by filing writ petition no. 43/99 and his grievance was that the disciplinary proceedings after retirement could not have been initiated unless the disciplinary authority arrives to the conclusion that any pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government by any action of the delinquent and with the prior sanction of his Excellency the Governor. 4. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 11.4.2002 holding that the respondent received sanction of the Governor on 1.9.1998 for initiation of departmental enquiry U/r 7 of Rules 1996 and further observed that if the grave misconduct or negligence has been committed by the employee during his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement, the authority holds competence to initiate enquiry even after the employee having been retired from service subject to the conditions contemplated U/r 7 of Rules of 1996. 5. 5. However, during pendency the enquiry officer submitted his report holding charges proved against him and held him guilty and punished by the competent authority vide order dated 23.5.2002 withholding 50% pension and 50% gratuity and that came to be challenged by seeking permission for amendment in the appeal and assailing the subsequent development which has taken place after passing of the order by the learned single Judge. 6. The main thrust of counsel for the appellant is that under R. 7 of the Rules 1996 the Governor reserves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period in any departmental or judicial proceedings if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence if has caused any pecuniary loss to the Government and in absence of any pecuniary loss being caused to the state govt., there could not be initiation of departmental proceedings against retired personnel. 7. His submission is that the disciplinary proceeding could be initiated against retired personnel only with prior sanction of his Excellency the Governor. However, further submits that the penalty to withdraw 50% pension in absence of any finding being recorded with regard to any pecuniary loss caused to the state, could not be held to be justified, at the same time, the authority does not hold competence to withdraw 50% gratuity which is the right conferred on a retired personnel and there is no provision under the Scheme of Rules 1996 for withholding/withdrawing gratuity even after the retired personnel is found guilty for committing gross misconduct or negligence while he was on duty and in these facts and circumstances the order inflicting penalty upon the appellant vide order dated 23.5.2002 is not sustainable in law and deserves to be quashed. 8. 8. The respondent while supporting the order of the learned single Judge submits that disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against the retired personnel under R. 7 of the Rules 1996 even for grave misconduct or negligence if committed by delinquent during the period of service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement and indisputably in the instant case it was grave misconduct committed by the delinquent appellant during the period of service and the authority was justified in initiating disciplinary proceedings against him in exercise of R. 7 of the Rules 1996 and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant only after seeking prior sanction from his Excellency the Governor vide order dated 1.9.1998 and further submits that the appellant failed to participate in the disciplinary enquiry despite ample opportunity being afforded for the reasons best known to him and after the charges were found proved by the enquiry officer as is evident from his report dated 2.7.2001, copy of which was served upon the appellant and after affording opportunity of hearing penalty was inflicted by the competent authority vide order dated 23.5.2002 in exercise of R. 7 of Rules 1996 and so far withholding of gratuity is concerned, definition of term pension as defined in Rule 3 (p) of the Rules 1996 Pension' includes gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity; but does not include dearness relief and interim relief and reliance has been placed on the judgment in Union of India And Others v. B. Dev, 1998 II CLR 750 SC:( AIR 1998 S.C.) 2709 ) & Jarnail Singh v. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, 1993 I CLR 511 SC:(Air 1984 S.C. 1484). 9. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the material on record.The enquiry against the delinquent after he stood retired could be initiated under R.7 of the Rules 1996 for gross misconduct or negligence committed during the period of service rendered or upon re-employment after retirement could be initiated. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the material on record.The enquiry against the delinquent after he stood retired could be initiated under R.7 of the Rules 1996 for gross misconduct or negligence committed during the period of service rendered or upon re-employment after retirement could be initiated. However, it could only be with the prior sanction of his Excellency the Governor, with a rider under R. 7(2) of the Rules 1996 that where departmental proceedings are initiated after retirement of the delinquent or during his re-employment it can be instituted only with the sanction of the Governor and the incident shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution and shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings. 10. In the instant case, memorandum along with charges & statement of allegations was served upon the appellant on 29.10.1998 after he stood retired from service while holding post of CMHO on 31.12.1996 with prior sanction of his Excellency the Governor dated 1.9.1998 and indisputably the alleged misconduct took place within the period of four years of such institution and after the appellant was afforded opportunity of hearing the enquiry officer found the charges proved as is evident from his report dated 2.7.2001 & held him guilty for grave misconduct being committed during the period of his service and the competent authority while upholding guilt imposed penalty of withdrawing 50% pension and 50% gratuity vide order dated 23.5.2002 under R. 7 of the Rules 1996. 11. Hon'ble the Apex Court in "Union of India And Others v. B. Dev in, 1998 II CLR 750 S.C. 2709 , while examining rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 corresponding to R.7 of Rules 1996 held ad infra: "Rule 9 gives to the President the right of (1) withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof (2) either permanently or for a specified period and (3) ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. This power can be exercised if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. This power can be exercised if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. The power therefore, can be exercised in all cases where the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. One of the powers of the President is to recover from pension, in a case where any pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, that loss. This is an independent power in addition to the power of withdrawing or withholding pension. The contention of the respondent, therefore, that Rule-9 cannot be invoked even in cases of grave misconduct unless pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, is unsustainable" 12. In the instant case, there might not be any pecuniary loss caused to the state Government but the act of the delinquent during the period of his service in giving admission in ANM training course to three candidates from the category of OBC by overriding the rights of the candidates eligible in seeking admission against seats reserved for SC/ST was considered to be grave misconduct and negligence. However, the rider imposed under R. 7 (2) (b) of Rules 1996 that the departmental proceedings could be initiated in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution and indisputably in the instant case, the alleged incident was of the Year 1996 and the appellant stood retired on 31.12.1996 and memorandum along with statement of allegation was served upon him on 29.10.1998 and it was within the stipulated period as contemplated under R. 7 2 (b) of Rules of 1996. 13. The submission of counsel for appellant that for the grave misconduct or negligence unless pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against retired personnel after retirement, is wholly without substance in the light of what has been observed supra and deserves rejection. 14. 13. The submission of counsel for appellant that for the grave misconduct or negligence unless pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against retired personnel after retirement, is wholly without substance in the light of what has been observed supra and deserves rejection. 14. The next submission made by the counsel that the authority was not competent to withhold gratuity under the present Scheme of Rules 1996 is also of no substance in view of R.3 (1) (p) which defines pension and that includes gratuity and the authority holds competence to withhold/withdraw gratuity as well and this what the Apex Court has considered in "Jarnail Singh v. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, AIR 1994 SC 1484 : 1993 I CLR 511 SC , ad infra: 6. to the extent it is relevant for our purpose, is an under:- Bearing in mind the definition of the term 'pension' in Rule 3(1)(o), the term 'pension' used in Rule 9(1) must be construed to include gratuity since the term 'pension', in the context, is not used in contradistinction to gratuity. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, referred to the amendment made in Rule 9(1) by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Third Amendment Rules, 1991, whereby the term 'pension' has been substituted by the expression 'pension or gratuity, or both' and consequential amendments made in that sub-rule. The question is : Whether this amendment made in 1991 indicates, as contended by learned Counsel for the appellant, that 'pension' alone could be withheld under Rule 9(1) and not also the gratuity prior to the amendment of Rule 9(1) in 1991? In our opinion, the definition of 'pension' in Rule 3(1)(o) quoted above negatives the appellant's contention and clearly indicates that the 1991 Amendment is merely clarificatory and makes explicit that which was clearly implicit prior to that Amendment by virtue of the definition of term 'pension' in Rule 3(1) (o). This clarification appears to have been made only to remove the doubt created by the decisions relied on by counsel for the appellant which are considered hereafter". 15. This clarification appears to have been made only to remove the doubt created by the decisions relied on by counsel for the appellant which are considered hereafter". 15. So far the judgment in UCO Bank And Another v. Rajinder Lal Capoor,(2007) 6 SCC 694:2007 III CLR 761 SC , relied by the counsel for appellant is of no assistance to him for the reason that in that case disciplinary proceedings could be initiated as contemplated under Regulation 20 (3) (iii) of the UCO Bank Officer Employees' Service Regulation, 1979 while the officer is in service and the officer stood retired on 1.11.1996 and admittedly the charge sheet was served upon him on 13.11.1998 and defence of the Bank was that show cause notice was issued to him purported to be in connection with irregularity committed by him prior to his retirement but such contention of the Bank was rejected by the Apex Court in the light of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of Regulation 1979 holding that proceedings against the officer could be said to be initiated when the charge sheet is served and indeed it was served upon him after his retirement on 13.11.1998 and such initiation of departmental proceedings after retirement were considered to be bad in law. But, in the instant case, the authority holds competence to initiate disciplinary proceedings even after retirement for a grave misconduct or negligence or pecuniary loss if caused during the period of service or on re-employment under R. 7 of Rules 1996.Consequently, this Court find no substance in the appeal and is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******