S.P. TALUKDAR, J.

(1) THE petitioner was a member of the Indian Police Service. Immediately before his retirement on 1st December, 1997, a Memorandum of Charges was issued against him on 26th November, 1997 whereby an enquiry under Rule 8 of All India services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (D. A. Rules) was directed to be held. It was for alleged violation of the provisions of Rule 3 (i) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 read with Rule 15 (i) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

(2) THE petitioner by filing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative tribunal Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), being O. A. No. 934 of 1998, challenged such proposed initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. By order dated 20th August, 2004, the Tribunal dismissed the said application.

(3) THE present application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th August, 2004.

(4) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for both parties and taking into consideration the relevant fact and materials, it appears to be the main contention of the present petitioner that proceeding under Rule 8 of the D. A. Rules, 1969 can only be initiated for imposing major penalties as specified in Rule 6. Since the retirement from service w.e.f. 1.12.1997, the provisions of the D. A. Rules, 1969 are not applicable and as such, continuation of the proceeding is without jurisdiction. With the retirement of the petitioner, it is not possible for the respondents to inflict any major punishment, such as, dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or compulsory retirement by way of punishment.

(5) IT was the stand of the petitioner before the Tribunal that the proceeding was initiated under Rule 8 (2) of the D. A. Rules, 1969 for inflicting major punishment and the very purpose of initiation of a proceeding under Rule 8 (2) of D. A. Rules, 1969 and the purpose of initiation of proceeding under Rule 6 (1) of D. C. R. B. Rules are completely different.

(6) MR. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, as learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in disregarding the settled principle of law that an enquiry initiated or continued under Rule 6 of D. C. R. B. Rules can only be done, even after a persons retirement, if some pecuniary loss had been caused to the Government, which was required to be recovered from the pensionary benefits of the employee if he was found guilty of such charge. It was submitted that the Tribunal was not right in holding that since there is a similar provision under Rule 9 (2) of C. C. S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, proceeding under Rule 8 (2) of D. A. Rules, 1969 should be deemed to be a proceeding under Rule 6 (1) of D. C. R. B. Rules. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the impugned order suffers from mis-appreciation of law and the Tribunal was not right in holding a proceeding, initiated prior to retirement, shall be deemed to be a proceeding under disciplinary rules even after retirement. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, even in Rule 6 (1) of (7) D. C. R. B. Rules, it is nowhere stated that a proceeding initiated under the provisions of Rule 8 (2) of D. A. Rules, 1969 shall be deemed to be a proceeding under D. C. R. B. Rules and shall be continued after superannuation.

(8) THE essence of argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the initiation of a proceeding under Rule 6 (1) of D. C. R. B. Rules is for recovery from pension. Since recovery from pension or deduction from pension have not been specified as a punishment under the provisions of Rule 6 of D. A. Rules, 1969, such punishment cannot be imposed on a proceeding initiated for imposition of major penalties under the provisions of Rule 8 (2) of d. A. Rules, 1969.

(9) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent authorities in course of his submission referred to the backdrop of the present controversy. Invit