K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point raised in this Appeal is whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant could be continued after his retirement from service under R.15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are the following:

2. The appellant while working as Sales Tax Inspector in the Sales tax Check-post at Perumpazhuthoor was suspended from service in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him by order dated 6.9.1991. Later, Ext. PI charge sheet dated 13.9.1991 was served on him. The allegations against him were that he was found asleep on the floor of the salestax checkpost unconsciously and in a fully drunken state during duty time on 5.8.1991 and again on 10.8.1991. During his slumber, the smugglers had a field day resulting in loss of revenue to the State. It was also alleged that he was in the habit of attending official duty in a fully drunken state. The appellant submitted Ext. P2 reply dated 14.11.1991 denying the allegations. The Board of Revenue by Ext. P3 order dated 20.3.1992 directed an enquiry to be held into the charges against him as it was not impressed by the delinquent's reply. The alleged non-co-operation of the appellant aborted the efforts of the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry, who in turn submitted a report to the Board or Revenue (Taxes) which is the disciplinary authority. The said authority after considering the various aspects of the case passed Ext. P5 order dated 15.7.1992 imposing a punishment of barring three increments with cumulative effect. The aggrieved appellant moved the Government by filing Ext. P6 appeal which was disposed of by Ext. P7 order. The Government modified the punishment as to one of barring two increments with cumulative effect.

3. The appellant challenged Exts. P5 and P7 orders by filing O.P. No. 667/1994. The Government resisted the Original Petition by filing a detailed counter affidavit.

4. The learned single judge who heard the Original Petition quashed Exts. P5 and P7 and issued the following directions:

"The proceedings pursuant to Ext. P3 should be continued and completed expeditiously. In case the enquiry officer appointed under Ext. P3 order is not available, the respondents will see that a new enquiry officer is appointed and the enquiry against the memo of charges issued as per Ext. PI is completed within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner does not co-operate with the enquiry, the enquiry officer will complete the enquiry ex parte and based on the report forwarded by the enquiry officer the proceedings in accordance with R.15 of the Rules will be concluded. Petitioner is directed to pay costs as already mentioned above to the tune of Rs. 2000/- which amount he shall pay to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of one month from today and produce a memo in that regard before the disciplinary authority. In case such a memo is not produced, the punishment imposed against the petitioner and as concluded by

Ext.P7 will revive."

5. The appellant filed the above Writ Appeal aggrieved by the judgment to the extent it directs the continuance of enquiry under R.15. According to the appellant, since he has already retired from service, no further action could be taken against him for imposing a penalty under R.15. He challenges the direction to pay costs also.

6. The main contention urged before us is that the proceedings to impose a penalty under R.15 cannot be continued against him after his retirement from service. It is also submitted that the proceedings could not be continued under R.3 of Part III of Kerala Service Rules in the absence of any allegation of pecuniary loss to the Government. We are inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that after his retirement, it is not permissible to proceed against him under R.15 for the purpo