Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, does not authorize automatic continuation of pending disciplinary proceedings against a retired Govt. servant. A decision of the competent authority to take action under Rule 21 and service of a show cause notice on the person concerned are essential requirements for the continuation of the proceeding. The requirement of reasonableness of procedure and time also applies to the continuation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 21.

For long 9 years, while the petitioner was in service, disciplinary proceeding drawn up against him continued to limp. To-day, when as a "pensioner" he should be enjoying much conveted fruit of his life's labour, it is still haunting him. The crucial point for our determination in this petition centres around an ambivalent provision of the relevant Pension Rules which threaten, the petitioner complains, to deny him the bounty due to him as a citizen from the welfare State.

2. First, a rough lay-out of the factual matrix. The peti­tioner joined service in 1949 in the Supply Deptt. Next year he switched over to the Transport Department as Assistant Station Superintendent in which post he was confirmed in 1956. He first came to hold a Gazetted Post, namely, that of Station Superintendent w. e. f. 1.4.55 and he was confirmed there­in on 29 8.62. In the meantime he was deputed to the United Kingdom for training in "Operation and Management of Road Transport Organisation". He served as a Transport Officer (Pool) for two spells, first from 25.7.61 to 2.12.63 and then again from 23.5.64 to 14.9.65. He continued to climb the ladder and in 1965 held the post of Divisional Superintendent wherein he was confirmed w. e. f. 1.10.68. Another promotion came in 1968 when he was appointed as Deputy Director (General) and Chief Traffic Officer. In 1970 the State Transport Department under­went a transformation as it became Assam State Road Trans­port Corporation under the Board Transport Corporation Act. He became a Deputy General Manager in 1971 in the new set up. He was allowed to cross efficiency bar w. e. f. 30.8.72. Thereafter, be was promoted w. e. f. 19.1.74 to the post of Additional General Manager under the Corporation. He came to the top of the ladder in 1978 when he was allowed to hold the charge of the office of General Manager of the Corpora­tion (vide Annexure VI). However, he was reverted to his origi­nal post w. e. f. 1.1.79 which aggrieved him wherefor he challe­nged his reversion in this Court. That matter is pending adju­dication. These are some of the loose ends of his story we read in his writ petition.

3. We turn, however, to the more vital aspect of the case having material bearing on the lis in the instant case. In the year 1969 Govt. of Assam appears to have detected some cases of "misappropriation of Govt. money in the Pool Transport". On 14.11.69 the Director, State Transport, Assam, was asked (vide Annexure VIII) to draw up proceeding against one M. N. Pujari, Transport Officer (Poll). In the same letter it was further mentioned that the petitioner was also holding the office of Transport Officer (Poll). Had he been vigilant the defalcation of Govt. money would not have taken place. Show cause notice was required to be issued to him also asking why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Accordingly, on 20.12.69 petitioner was asked to show cause why action should not be taken against him in respect of defalcation of Govt. money to the tune of Rs. 32,321.94 between the periods, 13.1.63 to 2.12.63 and 23.5.64 to 14.9.64. It was alleged in the letter that he had not been vigilant and that he had not exercised necessary checks and scrutiny as Drawing and Disbursing Officer according to rules and procedure due to which the defalcation could take place. A copy of the concerned audit report was also furnished to the latter. On 22.2.70 petitioner submitted his explanation denying all charges and there was no further action on this matter. The nub of the matter, however, springs up in Annexure-XI by which on 8.4.75 another or a first disciplinary pro­ceeding as such, for the purpose of resolution of the supposed controversy was drawn up against the petitioner which is impungned in the instant petition. He was asked to show cause under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964, for short the Rules or Service Rules, read with Article 311 of the Constitution why any of the pe