JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J. :- This appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution arises against the decision of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 686 of 1985 dated March 25, 1985. The appellant was working as an Assistant Grade IV of the Indian Foreign Service, Branch B in Indian High Commission at London. On November 8, 1978 he was transferred to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, but he did not join duty as commanded, resulting in initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him on August 23, 1979. Pending the proceedings, on February 26, 1980 the appellant sought voluntary retirement from service and by proceedings dated October 24, 1980 he was allowed to retire but was put on notice that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him would be continued under Rule 9 of Civil Services Pensions Rules, 1972 for short Rules. His main defence in the explanation was that his wife was ailing at London and, therefore, he sought for leave for six days in. the first instance and 30 days later, which was granted, but as she did not recover from the ailment, he could not undertake travel. So he sought for more leave, but when it was rejected, he was constrained to opt for voluntary retirement. After conducting the enquiry the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated May 19, 1981. The gravamen of charges as stated earlier are that the appellant absented himself from duty from December 15, 1978 without any authorisation and despite his being asked to join duty he remained absent from duty which is wilful contravention of Rule 3(i) (ii) and 3(i)(iii) of the Civil Services Conduct Rules 1964. The Inquiry Officer found that "it is however difficult to say whether his absenting himself from duty was entirely wilful". In the concluding portion he says that both the articles of charges have been established, the circumstances in which the appellant violated the rules require a sympathetic consideration while deciding the case under Rule 9 of the Rules. The President, on consideration of the report, agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission decided that the entire gratuity and pension otherwise admissible to the appellant was withheld on permanent basis as a measure of punishment. through the proceedings dated November 24, 1981. When the appellant challenged the legality thereof, the High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground that it would not interfere in. its discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

2. The contention of Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant having been allowed to retire voluntarily the authorities are devoid of jurisdiction to impose the penalty of withholding gratuity and pension as a measure of punishment and the proceedings stand abated. We find no substance in the contention. Rule 9(2) of the Rules provided that the departmental proceedings if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final 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. Therefore, merely because the appellant was allowed to retire, the Government is not lacking jurisdiction or power to continue the proceedings already initiated to the logical conclusion thereto. The disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Conduct Rules must be deemed to be proceedings under the rules and shall be continued and concluded by the authorities by which the proceedings have been commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. The only inhibition thereafter is as provided in the proviso namely "provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the Pre