Central government employee or central gov undertaking

Your English is difficult to understand. I think you are saying that if the employee of a public sector undertaking, as different from a Government Department itself, wishes to purchase immovable property he has to inform his employer (the undertaking). Next you are asking that if an employee retires after the purchase and if he had not informed his employer before or after the purchase, would it be a punishable offence.

If the employer comes to know of the purchase at any stage and if the employee is able to show that the income for the purchase was earned through legitimate means, there was no conflict of interest or nexus between the purchase and his duties and responsibilities as the employee  and all taxes had been paid, the employer can do nothing to the former employee.

Even when there was a conflict of interest Jayalalitha was let off by the Supreme Court in the Tansi case. Anyway you are not Jayalalitha.

Sorry for not writing in an easy format,you have got the message right.The client has bought property with the known source of income only,but he did not declare them with his employer,now he his retired.one crook criminal lawyer has said ,he needs to furnish otherwise.He may loose all his hard earned property.this is where the lawyers take the client for a ride.

The lawyer may not be crooked.  He may just be ignorant. Anyway you ignore him.