Judgment

SINGH, J. - Special leave granted.

2. This appeal raises an important question of law whether a Government servant after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation is liable to be dealt with departmentally for any misconduct, negligence or financial irregularities committed by him during the period of his service.

3. Necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are that M. H. Mazumdar, the Respondent was in the service of the State of Maharashtra as Supply Inspector and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on September 1, 1977. After his retirement the respondent was served with a charge-sheet on October 16, 1978 containing allegations of misconduct and negligence against him for the period he was in service. Enquiry into those charges was held and the respondent was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. On the conclusion of the enquiry the State Government issued orders on December 4, 1982 reducing the amount of pension payable to the respondent by 50 per cent permanently under Rule 188 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. The respondent challenged the validity of the Governments order by means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay. A Division Bench of that Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the State Governments order dated December 4, 1982 on the ground that the State Government had no authority in law to take any disciplinary proceedings against the respondent as he had already retired from service. Placing reliance on a decision of this Court in B. J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat, (1978) 2 SCC 202 the High Court held that the initiation of disciplinary enquiry and the order of punishment was unauthorised and illegal. The State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the High Court.

4. There is no dispute that the respondent had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on September 1, 1977 and charges were served on him on October 16, 1978 after about a year of his retirement. Indisputably the proceedings against the respondent were initiated after the respondent ceased to be in service of the State Government. The proceedings culminated into an order of the State Government reducing the respondents pension by 50 per cent. The question is whether the State Government was competent to take action against the respondent by reducing his pension. Conditions for grant of pension to a .Government servant of the State of Maharashtra are regulated by the Bombay Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 184 provides for grant of pension admissible under the rules to Government servant who is borne on its establishment. Rules 188 and 189 relevant for our purpose are as under :

"188. Government may make such reduction as it may think fit in the amount of the pension of a Government servant whose service has not been thoroughly satisfactory."

"189. Good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. Government may withhold or withdraw a persion or any part of it if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be found to have been guilty of grave misconduct either during or after the completion of his service, provided that before any order to this effect is issued, the procedure referred to in Note 1 to Rule 33 of Bombay Civil Services Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules shall be followed."

5. The aforesaid two Rules empower Government to reduce or withdraw a pension. Rule 189 contemplates withholding or withdrawing of a pension or any part of it if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct while he was in service or after the completion of his service. Grant of pension and its continuance to a Government servant depend upon the good conduct of the Government servant. Rendering satisfactory service maintaining good conduct is a necessary condition for the grant and continuance of pension. Rule 189 expressly confers power on the Government to with