1. The petitioner retired from the service of the Government of Kerala as a District Educational Officer on 31.1.2006. Prior to her retirement, while working as the District Educational Officer, Pathanamthitta, the petitioner was suspended on 25.5.2005 on three specific allegations of misconduct. That was challenged before this Court by the petitioner, which resulted in Ext.P1 judgment, wherein, after considering the enquiry report, this Court came to the conclusion that the materials on record did not warrant a conclusion of any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. But the respondents were given liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, if sufficient materials are collected. According to the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 memo of charges adding two more charges to the charges in the earlier memo of charges without collecting any further materials. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the memo of charges. Subsequently, by Ext.P4 order, the Government found that the charges are very grave in nature and the same was substantiated in evidence warranting a major penalty. But instead of imposing any penalty on the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings were concluded with the finding that the petitioner's service under Government had not been thoroughly satisfactory, for which, action will be taken separately invoking Rule 59 (b) of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. Subsequently, Ext.P5 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing her to show cause as to why 20% of the pension of the petitioner should not be withheld on the ground that the petitioner's service under the Government had been throughly unsatisfactory, in which the basis for that conclusion was the very same five charges included in Ext.P2. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 reply and approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 36937/2007. Pursuant to directions in Ext.P9 judgment, in that writ petition, Ext.P10 order has been passed confirming the proposal to withhold 20% of the petitioner's pension. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P2, P4, P5 and P10 in this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibits P2, P4, P5 and P10.

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant all terminal benefits tot he petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% till the amount is actually paid.

2. The main contention of the petitioner is that, by Ext.P5 order the petitioner has been found guilty of misconducts warranting major penalty without complying with the procedure under Rule 15 of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Therefore, Ext.P4 order in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioner is patently against the mandatory procedure prescribed under the rules and is liable to be quashed. Then Ext.P10 under Rule 59 (b) of Part III of Kerala Civil Service Rules, based on the very same allegations, which have never been proved, is also unsustainable, is the contention put forward by petitioner.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by 1st respondent justifying the impugned decisions. According to the learned Government Pleader, for proceeding under Rule 59

(b) of part III of KSR, no enquiry is contemplated, but only an opportunity of being heard, which has been given to the petitioner before passing Ext.P10 order and, therefore, Ext.P10 order is perfectly valid and proper. It is further submitted that, by Ext.P4 order, no punishment has been imposed on the petitioner pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, the petitioner cannot now hold that the disciplinary proceedings are bad for non-compliance with the procedure under Rule 50 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.

4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The five charges in Ext.P2 are the follo