JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The acme question in this case is whether disciplinary action against a teacher can be continued by an Aided College, under the provisions of the ‘First Statutes in respect of Pension, Provident Fund, Gratuity, Insurance and Age of Retirement of Teachers of Private Colleges, 1976 of the Calicut University’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Statutes’ for short). 2. The afore issue has been impelled for consideration of this Court in this writ petition because, while the petitioner was working as an Associate Professor in the services of the Sree Narayana College, Alathur, he was imputed with certain allegations, through Exts.P2 and P3 Memos of Charges. This led to serious disputations and a series of litigations; and while so, the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2021. The 3rd respondent-Corporate Manager, however, continued with the disciplinary action against the petitioner, which has now ended in Ext.P22 order, imposing a punishment of reduction of 20% from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P22, as also the other impugned orders relating to the disciplinary enquiry, are illegal and unlawful and that no such action could have been continued against him, after he had retired from service on 31.05.2021. 4. I have heard Sri. R. Harisankar - learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri. Rajan Babu - learned Standing Counsel for the Corporate Manager; Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader - Smt. Resmi Thomas, appearing for the official respondents. 5. The vehement contentions of Sri. Rajan Babu, in support of Ext.P22 is that the ‘First Statutes’ permit continuation of disciplinary action against a teacher, under the sanction of Statute 5 thereof, which makes Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) applicable. He argued that, therefore, when Part III KSR is applicable, the Manager can continue with the disciplinary action and that if the petitioner is thereafter found guilty, then reduction of pension, as mandated under Statute 21 of the ‘First Statutes’ will come to operate. He submitted that this is all that his client has done through Ext.P22 and thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 6. In reply, Sri. He submitted that this is all that his client has done through Ext.P22 and thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 6. In reply, Sri. R. Harisankar - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, at every stage when the disciplinary action against his client was taken forward, he had challenged it before this Court and interim orders obtained. He submitted that the Corporate Manager did not approach the Appellate Tribunal at the relevant time against certain orders issued earlier; and consequently, that disciplinary action was not completed at the time when his client retired from service on 31.05.2021.He argued that continuance of the same thereafter, was blatantly contrary to law and resultantly, that Ext.P22 is without legs to stand on. He concluded his submissions saying that, even the disciplinary action while his client was in service can only be construed to be illegal, since same was being conducted in gross disregard to the applicable statutory provisions and the legal imperatives. 7. When I evaluate the afore submissions, the first question which this Court is now called upon to answer is whether the Management of the College was authorized to continue with the disciplinary action, even after the petitioner retired from service. Even though Sri. Rajan Babu says that the ‘First Statutes’ permits so, a close reading of Statute 5 thereof would render the position to the contrary. For the sake of easy reference, Statute 5 is extracted below: “5. Kerala Service Rules to apply to teachers who retire at the age of 55 years: 1. The teachers who retire at the age of 55 shall be entitled to receive the same pensionary benefits as are allowed to similar categories of teachers in Government Colleges including family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity and all the conditions for the grant of these benefits applicable to Government Servants as laid down in Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (as amend from time to time) shall mutatis mutandis apply to such teachers. 2. Case of teachers who entered service on or after 1.4.1958. In the cases of teachers who entered service on or after 1.4.1958 and are above 55 but below 60 years of age on the date of commencement of these Statutes, their service only upto the age of 55 years shall count for pension and gratuity. 2. Case of teachers who entered service on or after 1.4.1958. In the cases of teachers who entered service on or after 1.4.1958 and are above 55 but below 60 years of age on the date of commencement of these Statutes, their service only upto the age of 55 years shall count for pension and gratuity. They shall credit the amount contributed by the Management and the University and the gratuity to the credit of the Government. 3. The Director of Collegiate Education in the case of teachers of Private Arts, Science and Training Colleges and the Director of Technical Education in the case of Private Engineering Colleges shall be pension sanctioning authorities and they shall furnish the following certificates to the Accountant General: (i) Certified that the services for which pension/gratuity/family pension are claimed have been verified with reference to the initial records, such as Attendance Register, Acquaintance Rolls, pay bills, etc., and should be admitted. (ii) Certified that the emoluments drawn have been approved and emoluments as defined in the Statutes have been reckoned for pension/gratuity, family pension. 8. It is, therefore, ineluctable that application of Part III KSR has been stipulated in the ‘First Statues’ only with respect to pension, and not the disciplinary action. The provisions of the KSR, which permit continuance of the disciplinary action against a retired Government Employee, certainly have not been made applicable in the case of teachers of Aided Colleges and I fail to gather how Sri. Rajan Babu argues that it should be so construed by this Court that such liberties are available to his client. 9. However, before I go forward, I must record the further submission of Sri. Rajan Babu that, even if Statute 5 afore extracted do not permit the continuation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, the Corporate Manager is certainly at liberty to approach the Sanctioning Authority of pension to the petitioner under Statute 21 of the “First Statutes” to appraise him that his work and conduct were unsatisfactory. His specific argument in this regard was that if the work and conduct of a teacher are found unsatisfactory by the Sanctioning Authority, then his pension can be reduced by 20%; and asserted that this is all which has been done by the Corporate Manager, through Ext.P22. 10. His specific argument in this regard was that if the work and conduct of a teacher are found unsatisfactory by the Sanctioning Authority, then his pension can be reduced by 20%; and asserted that this is all which has been done by the Corporate Manager, through Ext.P22. 10. It has thus become perspicuous that the stand of the Corporate Manager, in fact, is that Ext.P22 is not the culmination of disciplinary action against the petitioner per se; but that they are the recommendations made to the Sanctioning Authority of pension to the petitioner, under Statute 21 of the “First Statutes.” 11. When I consider the afore perspective, it is indubitable that the Sanctioning Authority certainly has the power to reduce pension of a Teacher on the ground of unsatisfactory work and conduct under the sanction of Statute 21 of the “First Statutes.” Pertinently, this does not pre-mandate any disciplinary action, but can even be on the basis of any input to establish that the Teacher did not act as he was expected to do in the discharge of his duties. This is incontestable from the afore said Statute, which is extracted for a complete reading: “21. Reduction of pension - The pension payable to a teacher under these statutes shall be subject to such reduction as may be ordered by the sanctioning authority for unsatisfactory work and conduct during the period of service as teacher.” 12. Axiomatically, the fact that disciplinary action has now been concluded against the petitioner, or the contra-contention that it is not permissible, are no longer relevant since he has, admittedly, retired from service on 31.05.2021. No detriment can be brought upon the petitioner, consequent to the disciplinary action proceeded against him thereafter, particularly when the Corporate Manager is now only relying upon the afore extracted Statute 21, in support of Ext.P22. 13. In such scenario, it is irrefragable that it is for the Sanctioning Authority to consider any relevant input to be given to him by the Corporate Manager with respect to the work and conduct of the petitioner, which may or may not have any reference to the disciplinary action initiated against him in the past. 14. 13. In such scenario, it is irrefragable that it is for the Sanctioning Authority to consider any relevant input to be given to him by the Corporate Manager with respect to the work and conduct of the petitioner, which may or may not have any reference to the disciplinary action initiated against him in the past. 14. To paraphrase, if the Sanctioning Authority is to find that the work and conduct of the petitioner were unsatisfactory, based on or de hors the disciplinary action against him, then certainly, he has the power to reduce pension proportionately, as he may deem fit, subject to the legal parameters attracted. 15. In summation, I am certain that it will not be now necessary for this Court to enter into the question whether the disciplinary action against the petitioner - which allegedly culminated in a final order against him - is valid or otherwise, since it is of no consequence; and I declare it so. 16. That said, certainly, the Corporate Manager has the right to approach the Sanctioning Authority of pension and place before him any relevant or germane input regarding unsatisfactory work and conduct of the petitioner. This is de hors and independent of the disciplinary action and will also be open to the Management to impel such other objections before the aforesaid Authority for valid reasons. 17. Resultantly, I order this writ petition with the following directions: (a) The competent Authority of the Government is hereby directed to consider sanctioning of pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner, taking note of all relevant and germane aspects and after affording an opportunity of being heard to him, as also to the Corporate Manager or his authorized representative; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (b) I leave liberty to the Corporate Manager to approach the Sanctioning Authority with any input regarding the work and conduct of the petitioner; and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall also be kept in mind by the Sanctioning Authority, while completing the exercise as per direction (a) above; however, solely within the parameters of Statue 21 of the “First Statutes.” (c) If, for any reason, the Sanctioning Authority is to find that there is any circumstance against the petitioner warranting a finding of unsatisfactory work and conduct, then he shall be specifically notified of the same and his version called for and assessed before any orders reducing the pension is issued. (d) It is needless to say that all the contentions of the petitioner, especially relating to the exercise of power by the Sanctioning Authority under Statute 21 of the “First Statutes” if it is so exercised-are left open to be impelled by him appropriately before any Authority, including this Court, if it becomes so warranted in future. (e) Merely to reiteratingly clarify, the decision as to whether any reduction from the pension of the petitioner is necessary, will be taken dispassionately by the Sanctioning Authority, adverting to the objections, if any, to be preferred before him by the Corporate Manager and implicitly adverting to the version of the petitioner and he shall not be swayed by any extraneous circumstances or solely by the disciplinary action per se. (f) As a corollary to the above, since the Corporate Manager is now confining his prayer qua Statute 21 of the “First Statutes” all other punishment or detriment to be initiated against the petitioner is declared to be unnecessary and without basis; and consequently, notwithstanding Ext.P22, the period when the petitioner was placed under suspension shall be construed to be duty and the salary and other benefits of the said period will be disbursed by the 7th respondent-Director of Collegiate Education; for which purpose, necessary instructions, if so required, will be issued by him to the 3rd respondent or such other competent Authority of the College. This shall be done not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.