The Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, do not require prior permission or sanction of the President of India for initiating disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust.

( 1 ) THE writ appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge by an order dated 24-3-1998 reported in 1998 (3) ALD 474, refusing to issue a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioner. The appellant challenged two orders issued by the respondent, one is a Memorandum bearing No. Cl/pc/tspr/94 dated 12-9-1994 and the other is an Order bearing No. Cl/pc/tspr/95 dated 15-5-1995. The appellant prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash both the orders. By an elaborate order, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. In this appeal, the parties are referred to as they were referred to in the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute. Briefly stated they are as follows: The petitioner retired as an Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from 30-11-1993 in the respondent organisation. In the year 1990-91 and 1991-92, the Port Trust called for tenders for the work of sprinkling of water on the roads in the dock area. Nine tenders were received. In the tender notice for the year 1990-91, a special condition was included calling upon the tenderers to furnish details of number of vehicles owned by the contractor and their capacity to handle the work which is difficult and risky. After the scrutiny by a Tender Committee, the Chairman of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust approved the tenders. As per the Port Trust the incorporation of a special condition resulted in poor response from the tenderers causing monetary loss to the tune of Rs. 1,06,740/- to the respondent.

( 3 ) THE respondent by its letter dated 30-11-1993 allowed the petitioner to retire from the Port Trust with effect from 30-11-1993 A. N. on attaining the age of superannuation without prejudice to the disciplinary action contemplated against him.

( 4 ) THE Chairman of the Port Trust issued the impugned Memorandum dated 12-9-1994 under Regulation 10 of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1968 (hereinafter called as the Regulations) read with Rule 9 of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter called as the Pension Rules ). The memorandum says that the proposed enquiry against the petitioner is with respect to the imputations of mis-conduct which resulted in loss of Rs. 1,06,740/ -. The petitioner was directed to submit a written statement of defence to the memorandum i. e. , the show-cause notice of enquiry. The petitioner submitted explanation on 21-10-1994 specifically stating that as he retired 11 months ago, in the absence of any provision in the regulations, disciplinary action against him cannot be initiated. In the explanation, he also denied the imputations. The respondent, then by the second impugned order dated 15-5-1995 appointed Sri Chandy Andrews as an Enquiry Officer under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 10 and also one Sri K. C. Biswal as Presenting Officer to present the case of the respondent before the Enquiry Officer, in exercise of the powers under sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 10. Aggrieved by the two impugned orders, the petitioner filed the writ petition praying for a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the two impugned orders.

( 5 ) THE respondent filed counter-affidavit inter alia contending as follows: The petitioner was allowed to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary action contemplated against him. In terms of Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Pension Rules, if the departmental proceedings are initiated against an employee who is in service, the same shall be continued even after the retirement of the employee. Whereas under Rule 9 (2) (b) of the Pension Rules, the departmental proceedings, if any, instituted while the employee was in service before retirement they can always be instituted in respect of mis-conduct which took place four years prior to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. As the charge-sheet is issued on 12-9-1994, the same is