ORDER : 1. The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the order dated 28.09.2018 by which, a penalty of withholding of sum of Rs.2,02,751/-with interest Rs.82,000/-was passed being the alleged loss caused on certain acts of the petitioner, pursuant to certain disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. 2. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. H.J. Anand, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel, Sri. T. Somashekar, appearing for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as a Warehouse Manager Grade -2 at the Warehouse of the respondent – Corporation at Maddur, Mandya District and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2014. 4. A show cause notice cum charge sheet invoking Rule 11 of the Karnataka State Warehouse Cadre and Recruitment Rules read with Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules’ for short) was issued against the petitioner and the petitioner replied to the charges denying the same and also contending that the enquiry now sought to be initiated pursuant to the said charge sheet is without jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the same, the enquiry proceeded and the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the allegations. After which, the Disciplinary Authority, by the order impugned, imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs.2,02,751/-+ interest of Rs.82,000/-on the ground that it was during the period when the petitioner was functioning as the Manager of the warehouse, the alleged loss has occurred. The Disciplinary Authority also refers to a report submitted by a committee in the year 2012 to be the basis of initiation of proceedings. 5. The charge sheet issued sought to enquire into an incident pertaining to the months of June and July, 2010. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2014 and the charge sheet is issued on 16.06.2015. The incident is admittedly has occurred four years prior to institution of the proceedings by way of issuance of charge sheet on 16.06.2015. The power to initiate proceedings against a retired employee is hedged by conditions stipulated under Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules’ for short). The incident is admittedly has occurred four years prior to institution of the proceedings by way of issuance of charge sheet on 16.06.2015. The power to initiate proceedings against a retired employee is hedged by conditions stipulated under Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules’ for short). Rule 214(2)(b)(ii), which reads as under: “214.[(1)(a) Withholding or withdrawing pension for misconduct or negligence.-The Government reserve to themselves the right of either withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including the service under a foreign employer and the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. (b) …xxx... (2)(a). The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement of the Government servant, 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 Government servant had continued in service: Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority other than Government, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the Government. (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment. (i) …xxx… (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) …xxx… (emphasis supplied) 6. In terms of the afore-extracted of the such institution cannot be enquired into by the employer as in terms of the aforesaid Rules. The respondent has lost its jurisdiction to enquire into such incidents, which are four years prior to the institution against a retired employee. The law in this regard is longer res integra. 7. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex court in the case of Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Atma Singh Grewal reported in (2014) 13 SCC 666 , has held as follows: “1. Petitioner 1 is the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB); Petitioner 2 is the Chief Engineer, HRD-cum-Inquiry Officer and Petitioner 3 is the Senior Executive Engineer working in PSEB. Ltd. v. Atma Singh Grewal reported in (2014) 13 SCC 666 , has held as follows: “1. Petitioner 1 is the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB); Petitioner 2 is the Chief Engineer, HRD-cum-Inquiry Officer and Petitioner 3 is the Senior Executive Engineer working in PSEB. The respondent was the employee of PSEB who retired from service, with effect from 30-4-2004. He had given the notice on 27-2-2004 for voluntary retirement which was accepted. As a result, the respondent stood voluntary retired from 30-4-2004. However, almost four years after his retirement i.e. on 7-1-2008, the respondent was served with the charge-sheet levelling certain allegations against him, allegedly committed between 15-5-2002 to 3-12-2002. These charges which were for the period May 2002 to December 2002 were obviously of a period much earlier than four years before the serving of the charge-sheet dated 7-1-2008 and much after his retirement when he had ceased to be the employee of PSEB. 2. The respondent filed the writ petition in the High Court seeking quashing of the said charge-sheet on the ground that it was barred in view of Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II which reserves right with the Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or a part of it under certain circumstances viz. when in judicial proceedings or departmental proceedings, such an employee is found to have committed grave misconduct or negligence. It also provides for recovery of peculiar loss, if caused. However, second proviso to the aforesaid provision stipulates the time-limit within which the departmental enquiry can be instituted, in respect of an ex-employee if it was not stated while such a government officer was in service. The precise language of second proviso 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 Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and if he has retired, the event should not be more than 4 years old. (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government 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 officer during his service.” 3. (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government 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 officer during his service.” 3. In the present case since the charges were of the year 2002 and charge-sheet was served in the year 2008, it was manifest that the alleged event took place much more than 4 years before the serving of charge-sheet and after his retirement. In this ground the learned Single Judge quashed [Atma Singh Grewal v. Punjab SEB, WP (C) No. 11836 of 2008, order dated 16-2-2009 (P&H)] the said charge-sheet dated 7-1-2008. The petitioners chose to file appeal before the Division Bench which has also been dismissed by the Division Bench vide impugned judgment dated 20-8-2009 [Punjab SEB v. Atma Singh Grewal, LPA No. 752 of 2009, decided on 20-8-2009 (Tri)] . 10. After hearing the counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid admitted facts, second proviso of Rule 2 stares at the face of the petitioner and no fault can be found in the judgment of the High Court.” (emphasis supplied) 8. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore extracted judgment, the very initiation of proceedings against the petitioner was without jurisdiction. Therefore, all the acts of the Disciplinary Authority right from the issuance of charge sheet on 16.06.2015 would be a nullity in law. 9. Therefore, the proceedings initiated and the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing recovery of Rs.2,84,871/-which is along with interest are all acts without jurisdiction and would stand vitiated. In the circumstance, the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the same along with interest. 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order of the Executive Committee Meeting No.1/2018-19 dated 28.09.2018 at Annexure-B is quashed. iii. The respondent is directed to release the withheld amount Rs.2,84,751/-which has been withheld from the terminal benefits of the petitioner along with interest at 6% per annum from the date it was recovered till the date of its payment iv. ii. The impugned order of the Executive Committee Meeting No.1/2018-19 dated 28.09.2018 at Annexure-B is quashed. iii. The respondent is directed to release the withheld amount Rs.2,84,751/-which has been withheld from the terminal benefits of the petitioner along with interest at 6% per annum from the date it was recovered till the date of its payment iv. The aforesaid order shall be complied with by the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.2,84,871/- with interest at 12% per annum.