Disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee must be authorized by the relevant rules, and specific events of misconduct within the specified period must be alleged to justify the institution of proceedings.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, an ex-employee of the coffee Board, has questioned the legality of the institution of disciplinary proceedings against him after his retirement.

( 2 ) THE petition is in the Order's list. By consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for hearing.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts of the case, are these : The petitioner joined the service of the Board on 25-8-1943. He retired from service on 28-5-1980. By memorandum dated 5-3-1984, disciplinary proceedings, was instituted against him. The article of charges and the statement of imputation have been set out at Annexures-1 and II to the Memorandum. They read :"annexure-1 article of charges framed against sri U. M. Puttaswamy Gowda, Assistant coffea Marketing Officer, Coffee board, Chickmagalur. That Sri U. M. Puttaswamy Gowda, while functioning as Asst. Coffee marketing Officer, Coffee Board, during the period between 1-1 -1960 and 28-5-80, has committed gross official misconduct inasmuch as he failed to submit true return of the assets and liabilities giving full particulars in prescribed proforma, acquired and disposed of immovable properties without the knowledge of the prescribed authorities, failed to report the transactions pertaining to the movable properties owned or held by him to the prescribed authorities and by abusing his official position, acquired assets disproportionate to the known source. of his income to the tune of Rs. 1,83,259-10 p. as detailed in the imputations of misconduct and thereby contravened Rules 18 (1), 18 (2), 18 (3) and 3 of Coffee board Servants Conduct Rules 1968. Annexure-li statement of imputation, of misconduct, in support of article of charge framed against Sri U. M. Puttaswamy gowda, Asst. Coffee Marketing Officer, coffee Board, Chtckmagalur. Sri U. M. Puttaswamy gowda joined the Coffee Board on 25-8-43 as a Clerk he was promoted as an Inspector on 1 - 6-45. For the purpose of investigation the check period was taken as from 1-1-60 to 28-5-80. During the check period, he Has drawn a total salary of Rs, 1,29,158-76. His first son as a joint family member of his family has drawn a net salary of Rs. 38,454-54 and a total bonus of Rs. 1,757-05. His second son Sri Vijayshankar has drawn a net salary of Rs. 4,749-50. From their family coffee estate, he has received a net income of Rs. 8,70,109-13. His wife received an income of rs. 5,63,162-52. His elder son received an income of Rs. 1,59,452-04 and his second son received an income of Rs. 1,64,148-01. Thus the family of Sri u. M. Puttaswamy Gowda has totally derived a total income of Rs. 23,46,310-64. The total expenditure during the check period ha been calculated as rs. 20,69,617-10. Sri 'puttaswamy Gowda from his family members acquired assets during the check period for Rs. 4,59,952-64, This likely savings over spending was only rs. 2,76,693-54. All the relevant data has been collected to arrive at these figures. Thus he was having assets dispropotionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 1,83,259-10 during the check period. Thus Sri U. M. Puttaswamy Gowda has misused his official position and committed official misconduct and thereby contravened rule 3 of Coffee board Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Sri U. M. Puttaswamy Gowda, while functioning as a Coffee Board servant has acquired both movable and immovable properties, in his name and. also in the name of his joint family members. It has come in evidence that he has amassed other valuable properties also during the check period in the capacity of a public servant. As per the Coffee Board Servants (Conduct) rules he had to submit returns from time to time regarding his true assets to the Coffee Board authorities. Sri Puttaswamy Gowda has submitted incorrect returns to the Coffee board authorities and also filed false returns. At any time, he being the head of the family has not at all submitted the returns of assets of his wife and of two sons thus he contravened rule 18 (1