The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment to the service rules cannot be made applicable to employees who had already retired from service at the time when the amendment was notified. The judgment also emphasizes the need for extreme care and caution before initiating disciplinary proceedings against an officer performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

Petitioner who has retired on 30-6-1990 from the service of the 4th respondent as Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Kannur on superannuation challenges decision taken by the Government to initiate judicial proceedings against him under R.3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. He also seeks a declaration that the amendment to Cl.(c) of the proviso to R.3 part III of the K.S.R. as evidenced by Ext. P13 notification would not govern persons who have already retired from service prior to the date of notification. The petitioner would further contend that, he is entitled to have full pension and death-cum¬retirement gratuity and all other racial benefits due to him disbursed forthwith with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

2. As per letter dated 5-10-1990 the 2nd respondent had admitted to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 1479/- towards pension and Rs. 48800/- towards death-cum-retirement gratuity. The amount of pension commuted and commuted value of pension were fixed as Rs. 591/- and Rs. 8991/- respectively. Since, there was delay in disbursal of the amount, the petitioner submitted representation dated 23-12-1990 and later Ext. P2 dated 4-2-1991. Non-liability certificate was issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner, Kannur under letter dated 22-9-1990 and according to the petitioner, no disciplinary proceedings what-so-ever were initiated or pending against him at the time of his retirement. The petitioner continued to make representations and ultimately to his representation Ext. P3 dated 5-3-1991 he was given a reply Ext. P4 dated 24-3-1991.

3. In Ext. P4 after referring to the pension admitted by the Accountant General it is stated that since disciplinary actions pending finalisation against the petitioner, only provisional pension as provided under R.3-A(a) Part III of the K.S.R. was sanctioned at the rate of Rs. 986/- p.m. Since the petitioner was not aware of any departmental proceedings initiated against him, he submitted a representation Ext. P5 dated 30-4-1991 requesting for finalisation of the alleged disciplinary proceedings. Even the provisional pension was not being paid to him, therefore he submitted Exts. B6 and P7 representations and later representation dated 6-8-1991 to the Minister for Finance and another representation dated 3-9-1991 before the Secretary to Government, Taxes department. Yet another representation was filed by him before the Chief Minister on 1-11-1991. Quoting the above representation he was given a reply Ext. P5 dated 14-1-1992. Under the above letter he was informed. that the Government as per G.Oi(Rt) 473/91/TD dated 19-7-1991 had accorded sanction to initiate judicial proceedings against the petitioner under R.3 part 111 of the K.S.R. for the irregular issue of registration certificate which resulted in huge loss of revenue to the Government. He was further informed by the Secretary, Board of Revenue that under these circumstances, the Board was not in a position to consider his representation at. that time.

4. The petitioner would submit that in the year.1983 pursuant to a notice dated 13-6-1983 received by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner the petitioner had submitted Ext. P12 report detailing the circumstances under which the registration certificate issued to certain assessees were cancelled. A registration had been granted in the year 1982 to one K. Jaya Prakash, Proprietor, Prakash Traders, Big ba/ar, Kozhikode, a notice was issued to him directing him to remit an amount of Rs. 157- for delayed filing of Form No. 9 returns from April, 1982 to June, 1982 and to pay penal interest for the delayed payment of tax for April, 1982 to June, 1982. He did not respond to the notice, he did not produce the accounts in the year 1981-82 for scrutiny of the petitioner, even though sufficient opportunity was given to him. Pursuant thereto a notice was given to him directing him to show cause why registration certificate granted to him cannot, be cancelled. Since no reply was