( 1 ) THE petitioner is a retired divisional engineer (operations ). He retired from service on 31. 7. 1997 from the respondent-corporation. Subsequent to the retirement, he was served with a memo on 24. 1. 2000 referring to certain punishments imposed while he was in service and sought for explanation for certain charges asking to show-cause as to why the punishment should not be imposed on him. On receipt of the said memo, he submitted his explanation stating that he did not commit any mistake and he cannot be imposed any punishment. Ultimately through another memo dated 24. 9. 2001, the respondents imposed punishment of 25% cut in the pension of the petitioner for a period of five years. Aggrieved by the said punishment, he preferred an appeal on 3. 11. 2001 to the second respondent, but it was rejected through the order dated 28. 5. 2002. The respondents instead of releasing the terminal benefits after completion of the punishment period of five years issued another memo on 21. 1. 2004 seeking to appoint an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry with regard to the irregularities in transformer repairs, voltage coils etc. , alleged to be committed by the petitioner while in service. On receipt of the said memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation, but the respondents instead of dropping the charges, issued revised orders appointing an enquiry officer to frame the charges against the petitioner and others. The petitioner therefore approached this court through this writ petition seeking to declare the memo dated 29. 4. 2004 issued by the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to pay all the terminal benefits.

( 2 ) THE respondents filed a counter- affidavit with the following averments in brief:

( 3 ) THE petitioner worked at suryapet for 30 years and developed vested interest against the interest of the erstwhile apseb. The A. P. lokayuktha received a complaint with serious allegations of abuse of power against the petitioner and a prima facie finding was given by lokayuktha. After receiving an investigation report, the lokayktha made the following observation in his order dated 22. 9. 2000:"considering the gravity of the matter involving more than a crore of rupees in suryapet division alone probabalising serious and grave acts of misconduct and malpractice, it is desirable the entire matter be brought to the notice of the state government for initiating immediate follow up action"

( 4 ) IN the light of the observations made by the A. P. lokayuktha, the impugned notice dated 29. 4. 2004 was issued. Since the petitioner opted for revised pension rules, 1980, he is liable for appropriate action under the said rules. Under rule 8 of the revised pension rules, the pension could be withheld. Under regulation No. 8 of the pension code, the respondents have the authority to regulate the payment of pension. The writ petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) THE respondents issued a memo dated 24. 9. 2001 imposing punishment of 25% cut in the pension of the petitioner for a period of five years in pursuance of an enquiry initiated against him while in service. The above punishment was imposed on the basis of an enquiry report dated 26. 11. 1994. The proceedings of the enquiry initiated against the petitioner while he was in service can be continued even after his retirement, and the punishment can be imposed according to the revised pension rules, 1980. Therefore, the respondents have not committed any illegality by imposing the punishment of 25% cut in the pension for a period of five years.

( 6 ) SUBSEQUENT to the date of rejection of the appeal on 28. 5. 2002, the petitioner made an application on 23. 6. 2003 to the second respondent requesting to finalize the pension payable to him on the ground that the period of punishment was over by 3. 7. 2002.

( 7 ) ON 21. 1. 2004 another memo was issued by the respondents intimating the petitioner that an enquiry o