Judgment : In the year 1939 the petitioner was appointed as a Treasurer of the Calcutta Collectorate. On 8th September, 1939 the petitioner, his father, Sahsi Bhusan Ray Chowdhury and his mother Sm. Naresh Kumari Ray Chowdhury jointly executed a bond in favour of the Governor of the then Province of Bengal binding themselves and their heirs and successors for due performance and fulfillment of the duties of the petitioner as the Treasurer. They had delivered to, deposited with and endorsed over to the Collector Government Promissory Notes to the extent of Rs. 1,06,000/- for the purpose of security and indemnifying the Governor of the province of Bengal against the losses and damage which may be suffered. In September, 1973 the petitioner had strained the age of superannuation but he was re-appointed as the Treasurer of the Calcutta Collectorate. He was due to finally retire on 30th April, 1975. According to the petitioner on 30th April, 1975, in the presence of the Collector, Calcutta. 2. And the Treasury Officer he had made over charge to Sri S. Sadhukhan who was then the Special Treasurer of the Collectorate. On 2nd May, 1975 the petitioner had drawn his salary for the month of April, 1975. On 30th June, 1975 he was submitted papers for drawing up his pension and gratuity. On 1st July, 1975 the office of the Collector of Calcutta, forwarded the pension and gratuity papers of the petitioner to the office of the Accountant General, West Bengal. On 22nd July, 1975 the Accountant General, West Bengal bas submitted a final report for payment of pension and gratuity to the petitioner. 3. The respondents have disclosed that on 27th June, 1975 the Commissioner. Presidency Division had written a letter to Shri N. Ganguli. who was then the Collector, Calcutta standing that the Chief Secretary bad been informed that the new Treasurer had found cash balance at the treasury short by a considerable amount after taking charge. But no report on this point had been submitted by the Collector. The Commissioner informed the collector that he had asked his Personal Assistant, Shri B. Barman to look into the matter. The cash book etc. should be shown to him. But no report on this point had been submitted by the Collector. The Commissioner informed the collector that he had asked his Personal Assistant, Shri B. Barman to look into the matter. The cash book etc. should be shown to him. On 28th June, 1975 Shri M. Ganguli, the then Collector of Calcutta wrote a D.O. letter to the Commissioner, Presidency Division stating that the Treasury, officer in a note had informed him only day before yesterday the fact stated in the said D.O. letter. On 30th April, 1975 certain deficit had been found in the cash balance of the treasury. It had been now estimated that Rs. 545/- was to be paid by the Ex-treasurer, Shri Surendra Kumar Ray Chowdhury. The Collector further stated that the present treasurer had taken over charge from Shri Surendra Kumar Ray Chowdhury on 30th April, 1975 in the afternoon with full responsibility as regards cash and stamp etc. The Collector further stated that it was also apprehended that there might be certain shortages left by the ex-treasurer in stamps and the Treasury Officer and the Treasurer had been asked to enquire into the matter and send a report. The Collector stated that he would shortly come up with the proposal to realise the amounts involved from Shri Surendra Kumar Ray Chowdhury's security of Rs. 1,05,000/- in Government promissory notes now being held in terms o the agreement dated 8th September, 1939. Sri B. Barman, personnel Assistant of the Commissioner, Presidency Division after holding an enquiry into the allegations regarding the alleged shortages of stamps and cash in the Treasury double lock and defalcation of sale proceeds of stamps by the senior salaried stamp vendor submitted a report on 19th July, 1975 Sri Barman adversely commented about the responsibility of and then Treasury Officer regarding the alleged shortages in cash and stamps. The Commissioner, Presidency Division by his memorandum dated 24/25th July, 1975, had forwarded the said report of B. Barman together with his own comments and observations. The Commissioner also made adverse comments against the Collector and the Treasury Officer. He endorsed the suggestion that the Collector and the Treasury Officer should be transferred forth with. On 10th July, 1975 the Collector, Calcutta submitted a report to the Commissioner, Presidency Division, Calcutta stating that the new Treasurer after taking over charge had undertaken verification of stock of stamps etc. He endorsed the suggestion that the Collector and the Treasury Officer should be transferred forth with. On 10th July, 1975 the Collector, Calcutta submitted a report to the Commissioner, Presidency Division, Calcutta stating that the new Treasurer after taking over charge had undertaken verification of stock of stamps etc. and had now submitted a total list of shortage in stamps. In the meantime N. Ganguli, the then Collector proposed that the Government might be moved to realise the amount involved (Rs. 43,011/20P), from the security of Finance, Taxation Department. 4. On 10th July, 1975 Sri N. Ganguli, the then Collector had requested the petitioner Co see him in connection with 'certain matter' at his office on 16th July, 1975. The petitioner, however, did not meet the Collector. On 23rd July, 1975 the Collector lodged a First Information Report with the Officer-in-charge, Hare Street, Police Station, Calcutta against the petitioner and one Gopal Sen, a Lower Division Clerk, alleging declaration of Government stamps tampering with the entries in the stock register etc. On 5th August, 1975 Sri N. Ganguli as the Collector of Calcutta forwarded to the petitioner a statement showing total shortages of stamps in the double lock of the Calcutta Collectorate fund out on actual stock verification relating to the period prior to 30th of April, 1975 when the petitioner was the Treasurer. The Collector called upon the petitioner Co make good the total shortage in stamps so far noticed amounting to Rs. 43,001/20 p. by 25th August, 1975 failing which the amount might be recovered out of his security of Rs.1,06,000/- in Government promissory notes then held in terms of the security bond registered on 8th September, 1939. The petitioner by his letter dated 20th September, 1975 denied his responsibility for the shortage of stamps. He claimed that he had handed over full charge at the time of his retirement on 30th April, 1975. On 6th August, 1975 the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal Finance Department, Audit Branch issued a memorandum directing the Assistant Director of Treasuries and Accounts to undertake physical verification of stocks of stamps and cash etc. in the Calcutta Collectorate Treasury jointly with the judicial P.A. to the Commissioner, Presidency Division with the Assistance of two Divisional Auditors of the Board of Revenue. The verification was to be done in the presence of the Collector and the Treasury Officer. in the Calcutta Collectorate Treasury jointly with the judicial P.A. to the Commissioner, Presidency Division with the Assistance of two Divisional Auditors of the Board of Revenue. The verification was to be done in the presence of the Collector and the Treasury Officer. The Ex-treasurer was also directed to be informed. The Collector of Calcutta by his Memorandum dated 8th August, 1975 notified the petitioner that a joint physical verification of stocks of stamps and of cash in the Collector, Collectorate Treasury would be undertaken by the Assistant Director of Treasuries and Accounts, West Bengal and the P .A. to the Commissioner of Presidency Division in the presence of the Collector and the Treasury Officer during the office hours from 10.30 a.m. daily with effect from 13th August, 1975 till the above work would be completed. The petitioner was requested to remain present during the said physical verification of stocks and stamps and of cash on and from the date and hours mentioned above. The petitioner by his letter dated 12th August, 1975 informed the Collector that his duties, responsibilities and control had ended with the handing over of charge to the new Treasurer under the supervision of the Collector. He claimed that be had been released only after everything was found in order. On 26th August, 1975 the petitioner had written another letter to the Collector, Calcutta denying his responsibility for the alleged shortage of stamps in the Collectorate. 5. On 20th September, 1975 the Collector Sri N. Ganguli, Calcutta issued a notice upon the petitioner stating that at the time of making over charge on his retirement there was shortage in stamps amounting to Rs. 43.011/20 p. in the double lock of Calcutta Collectorate Treasury which amounted to grave misconduct on his part and in respect of which a police case had been started against him and the same was under investigation. The Collector stated that it was proposed to withhold the petitioner's pension which included gratuity under Rule 8(3) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. The petitioner was requested to submit any representation which he might wish to make before the Collector by 8th October, 1975. On 13th August, 1975 this Court had granted an anticipatory bail to the petitioner under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner was requested to submit any representation which he might wish to make before the Collector by 8th October, 1975. On 13th August, 1975 this Court had granted an anticipatory bail to the petitioner under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On 24th September, 1976 the said bail order was modified by permitting the petitioner to withdraw the interest accrued or which might accrue on his security deposit of Rupees 1,05,000/- without touching the principal amount. 6. On 1st October, 1975 the petitioner moved this Court and obtained Civil Rule No. 18827(W) of 1975, inter alia, praying that the orders of the Collector of Calcutta dated 5th August, 1975 asking him to make good shortages of stamps amounting to Rs. 43,011/20 p. be set aside. The petitioner also challenged the show cause notice under Rule 8(3) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 dated 20th September, 1975 issued by the Collector, Calcutta. 7. The respondents in the said rule disclosed that on 4th September, 1975 the Deputy Secretary to the Board of Revenue, West Bengal by a Memo had informed the Commissioner that he had been directed to say that in view of the provisions of the Security bond of the petitioner. The security were not to be returned to him. If any further loss be detected by 31st October, 1975 the same could be also recovered from the balance of the amount of the security bond. The Deputy Secretary of the Board of Revenue, West Bengal also stated that suitable action might also be taken for withholding the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. A copy of the said letter of the Board was forwarded by the Commissioner, Presidency Division to the Collector of Calcutta for information and necessary action. A copy of the note recorded on Board's file was endorsed for the information of the Collector. The respondents further disclosed that on 17th September, 1975 the Bank of India had sold some of the securities furnished by the petitioner and had credited a sum of Rs. 43,011/- to the account of the State Government. 8. The petitioner has been allowed to amend his writ petition in Civil Rule No. 18827 (W) of 1975 in order to challenge the aforesaid order for deduction made from his security. 9. 43,011/- to the account of the State Government. 8. The petitioner has been allowed to amend his writ petition in Civil Rule No. 18827 (W) of 1975 in order to challenge the aforesaid order for deduction made from his security. 9. On 9th October, 1975 Shri N. Ganguli, Collector of Calcutta passed an order that the pension including the gratuity of the petitioner be withheld under Rule 8 of the West Bengal (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 until further orders. The petitioner bas obtained Civil Rule No. 2043 (W) of 1975, against the said order for withholding his pension and gratuity. On the prayer of the learned Advocates for both parties I have heard these Rules analogously because they raise common questions of law and fact. 10. Me. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner bas submitted before me that the respondents have no power to deduct the alleged loss of stamps from the Calcutta Collector by sale of the Government promissory notes furnished by the petitioner as security. The petitioner had denied his liability for the said alleged loss. He had claimed that on 30th April, 1975 he had handed over charge to his successor treasurer. It was not open to the respondents to adjudicate the petitioner's liability for the said alleged loss of stamps. Civil Court alone was competent to determine the said question of loss. Without such adjudication by Civil Court the respondents were not entitled to deduct the alleged loss out of the Govt. promissory notes furnished by him along with his indemnity bond. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that on the date of the deduction of the alleged loss by way of sale of some of the securities furnished by the petitioner there had been no adjudication as regards the petitioners responsibility for the said alleged loss. Further, the Collector who had issued the show cause notice did not pass any final order. The Board of Revenue or the Commissioner did not hold any adjudication proceeding but the Deputy Secretary of the Board of Revenue conveyed the direction that the steps be taken to recover the loss from the petitioner's security bond. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that Shri N. Ganguly the then Collector of Calcutta was in the position of co-accused in the matter of the alleged loss of stamps from the double lock of the Collectorate. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that Shri N. Ganguly the then Collector of Calcutta was in the position of co-accused in the matter of the alleged loss of stamps from the double lock of the Collectorate. In this connection he relied upon the report of Shri B. Barman, Personal Assistant to the Commissioner, Presidency Division and several communications sent by the Commissioner, Presidency Division. The proceedings for deduction and for withholding the petitioners' pension and gratuity were quasijudicial in nature. There was grave apprehension about the impartiality and fairness of Shri N. Ganguli, the then Collector of Calcutta. Therefore, his decision in these matters was baised and liable to be quashed. 11. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted the order under section 8 of the West Bengal (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 passed by Shri N. Ganguli, the then Collector of Calcutta was also without jurisdiction. Mr. Mukheljee submitted that Rule 8 is attracted in case of conviction on a criminal charge or in case of Commission of acts of grave misconduct after retirement. Rule 8(II) cannot be applied in case of facts and omissions of a Government servant during his tenure of office the proceeds thereof together with any interest receivable towards the indemnity furnished by the petitioner in the event of vacation of the office of treasures or in the event of death of the petitioner, the Government promissory notes shall be returned after six months from the date of such death or vacation. It was further provided that the return at any time of the Government promissory notes shall not be deemed to effect the right of the Governor to take proceedings upon or under the bond against the said Surendra Kumn Ray Chowdhury, Sashi Bhusan Ray Chowdhury and Naresh Kamini Ray Chowdhury in case of any breach of the condition of the bond. 12. Thus, the petitioner his father and his mother entered with the Governor of Bengal into a contract to save the latter from loss that might be caused by the conduct of the petitioner (vide section 124 of the Indian Contract Act). Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the aforesaid bond does not confer upon the Government any power to arbitrate or adjudicate whether loss had been actually caused by any Act or omission on the part of the petitioner. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the aforesaid bond does not confer upon the Government any power to arbitrate or adjudicate whether loss had been actually caused by any Act or omission on the part of the petitioner. Only after it is determined in any judicial proceeding that the petitioner is liable to indemnify, the Government would have right to sell the aforesaid Government securities. In the instant case there had been no such medical determination. Therefore, the respondents were not entitled to sell the Government securities. 13. The decision of S.N. Andley, C.J. and S.N. Shankar, J. in (1) M/s. Marwar Tent Factory v. Union of India and Another, AIR 1975 Delhi 27 and the other cases noted therein undoubtedly support the petitioners' above contentions. The petitioner of the said case had entered into contract with the Government of India for supply of tents at a total cost of Rupees 6,23,650/- of the specification and quality. According to the terms and conditions of the contract, 95% of the agreed purchase price was to be paid after inspection and acceptance of the same by the Inspecting Officer on the proof of their despatch. The balance 5% was to be paid after receipt in good condition by the consignee. The petitioner bad received 96 % of the price of the consignment on the proof of their despatch. The balance 5% was also paid on the basis of three certificates issued by the consignee that they were received in good condition. After the lapse of over two years the Director General of Supplied and Disposal had called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rupees 92,363/- as compensation for breach of warantee of the contract. Failing such payment the Government threatened to deduct the amount from the pending or future bills of the petitioner in terms of clause (xviii) of the General Terms and Conditions governing the contract in question. The clause (xviii) was set out in paragraph 6 of the judgment in M/s. Marwar Tent Factory v. Union of India and Another (Supra). The Division Bench held that the claim raised by the Government as the purchaser was really by way of compensation for an alleged breach of a warrantee of contract. Therefore, the call was for damages. The same amounted to a right to use and not an actionable claim. The Division Bench held that the claim raised by the Government as the purchaser was really by way of compensation for an alleged breach of a warrantee of contract. Therefore, the call was for damages. The same amounted to a right to use and not an actionable claim. Therefore, when a person complained of a breach, his remedy was to file a suit for recovery damages. The Division Bench in M/s. Marwar Tent Factory v. Union of India (Supra), held that there is no word in clause (xviii) conferring upon the purchaser to adjudicate its claim for damages and to convert the amount claimed into a binding debt. They refused to read a power to adjudicate implicit in the clause because they would amount to constituting the purchaser as a judge in its own cause. The said decision of the Supreme Court in (2) General Manager, North Eastern Railway v. Dinabandhu Chakravorty, 1970 SLR 382 dealt with power of the Government of make deduction from the provident fund of a Government servant in the exercise of its powers under Rule 1341 of the Provident Fund Rules. The Supreme Court held that in the relevant rule no authority bad been constituted fur deciding any dispute that might arise between the subscriber and the Government as regards any alleged incurring of liability or as regards its quantum. Therefore, the only forum in which these disputes could be decided was the Civil Court. The Government could not be a judge in its own cause. Hence the Government's action was held to be an arbitrary one. 14. The decision in (3) M.C. Joseph v. The State of Kerala and Ors., AIR 1973 Kerala 216 dealt with extent of the authority of the Government to fix liability under a bond furnished by a godown keeper of a goodgrains depot of the Civil Supplies Department of the Kerala Government. Incidentally the said Government Servant by executing a bond agreed that in the event of any loss or damage being caused to the Government by any act of omission, negligence, carelessness, misconduct or dishonesty, he would be bound to make good such loss or damage to the Government, In case of his failure it would be lawful and competent to the Government to recover the same as arrears of public revenue. P. Narayan Pilat, J. held that there was no indication in the said bond as to how the Government would fix the extent of the liability of the said godown-keeper. The Government had not been made an arbitrary by the impugned bind and no right had been conferred upon the Government to fix the liability. Liability for damages and the power to fix the extent of the damages were entirely distinct things. Therefore, he Government was incompetent to fix the liability of the petitioner. It was further held that no man could be a judge in his own cause and in case of a dispute about a contract a person cannot be both party and a judge. 15. In my view, the above principles of law should be applied for considering the extent of the power of the State Government to determine the liability of the petitioner for the alleged loss of stamps from the Government Collectorate. Undoubtedly, the indemnity executed by the petitioner and two others was in very wide terms and the petitioner was made responsible for all kinds of losses and damages which might occur while he would remain the Treasurer. But the bond did not confer upon the Government any authority to adjudicate whether any loss or damage in fact and occured during the time he was functionning as the Treasurer or whether such loss or damage had occured after he had retired. In this case the petitioner denied his responsibility for the alleged loss and shortages of stamps from the Collector ate on the ground that he made over charge on 30th April, 1975 and the new Treasurer had taken over charge with full responsibility. When the aforesaid bond did not empower the Government to arbitrate the said question of liability, it cannot claim to be a judge of its own cause in total disregard of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence. Mr. Chowdhury, tried to contend before me that the above decision in M/s. Marwar Tent Factory v. Union of India & Anr. (Supra), does not lay down good law but, I am not prepared to accept this submission. A party to a contract of Indemnity can claim its authority to adjudicate the liability of the other party only if the terms of the particular contract authorities one party to fix the extent of liability of other party. 16. (Supra), does not lay down good law but, I am not prepared to accept this submission. A party to a contract of Indemnity can claim its authority to adjudicate the liability of the other party only if the terms of the particular contract authorities one party to fix the extent of liability of other party. 16. Unless a particular contract confers such a right of adjudication, a party to a contract. cannot decided whether the other party had committed a breach and whether the said party is liable to compensate it in the recent case, the indemnity bond did not arm the Government with such power to adjudicate any dispute concerning the liability of the petitioner arising under the bond. Only after the said question of liability is adjudicated by civil court in favour of the Government. The Government may proceed to enforce its right to sell the securities deposited by the petitioner and two others. It may be pointed out that the aforesaid bond was executed net only by the petitioner but also by his father and mother. These two others in effect promising to save the Government from the loss and damage which might be causes by the petitioner acting as the treasurer, in the absence of any express authorization, the Government is not entitled in law to determine the liability of three promissors and to sell Government promissory notes jointly deposited by the promissors. In the absence of any dear provision in the bond, I cannot hold that the Government was entitled to act as a Judge of its own cause. The said bond does not create any actionable claim but really confers a right to see the petitioner and the two others for alleged loss or damage during the petitioner's Treasurership. "Further, Board of Revenue itself without recording any finding that the petitioner was in fact responsible for the alleged loss directed that the loss of Rs. 43,001.20 should be recovered from the petitioner's security bond. The Board had never called upon the petitioner to show cause why the above deduction shall not be made and no hearing was given to him. The Commissioner of the Presidency Division did not also conduct any proceeding against him but forwarded the Board's letter to the Collector. 43,001.20 should be recovered from the petitioner's security bond. The Board had never called upon the petitioner to show cause why the above deduction shall not be made and no hearing was given to him. The Commissioner of the Presidency Division did not also conduct any proceeding against him but forwarded the Board's letter to the Collector. The Collector acted mechanically by carrying out the directions contained in the letter of the Deputy Secretary of the Board dated 4th September, 1975. Thus, the deduction order was also in violation of the principles of natural justice." 17. I do not, however, decide whether in fact any loss has been caused during the time the petitioner served as the Treasurer of the Calcutta Collectorate. Nothing said in this judgment will prejudice the claim and contentions of the parties in any suit between them in respect of the said bond. 18. It appears that the Reserve Bank of India under instructions of the Collectorate of Calcutta had sold sum of the Government promissory notes on 17th September, 1975 and had credited the sum of Rs.43,011.20 to the account of the State Government. Accordingly, I propose to direct the respondents to forbear from making any deduction form the sale proceeds of the security bond except in accordance with a decree of the Civil Court. The Government should return the remaining promissory notes and refund the sale proceeds realised by the Government by disposal of some of the Government promissory notes on 17th September, 1976. 19. The Order of N. Ganguli for withholding the petitioner's pension and gratuity is also liable to be set aside. The Rule 8(i) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 has no manner of application to the facts of the present case. The said Rule empowers the pension sanctioning authority either to withhold or to withdraw a pension or part thereof in two circumstances (1) the person is convicted of a serious crime and (2) he is found guilty of grave misconduct. The Rule 8(i) refers to conviction of finding guilty of grave misconduct occuring after a Government servant is retired and his pension is already sanctioned. The word 'withhold' means to refrain from, putting in actions, refusing to grant, similarly, "withhold" means to pull aside or pull back, take away. The Rule 8(i) refers to conviction of finding guilty of grave misconduct occuring after a Government servant is retired and his pension is already sanctioned. The word 'withhold' means to refrain from, putting in actions, refusing to grant, similarly, "withhold" means to pull aside or pull back, take away. Thus unles the pension is sanctioned and becomes payable no question of either withholding or withdrawal permanently or for specified period could arise. This is clear from the opening word of Rule 8(i) that future good conduct shall be implied condition of every grant of pension. In other words, even after the pension is granted the pension sanctioning authority may with hold or withdraw the same on either of the grounds mentioned under Rule 8(i). The Rule 8(i) mentions two circumstances which will be treated as breaches of this stipulation for continued good conduct of a pensionereg, conviction of a serious crime or finding guilty of grave misconduct. 20. Mr. Chowdhury, the learned Advocate for the respondents had submitted that the expression 'withhold' in Rule 8(i) means refusing to grant. Therefore, the authority concerned by invoking Rule 8(i) may refuse to grant pension to a Government servant on the ground of his conduct. But a pension is sanctioned under clause (vii) Rule 65 and not Rule 8(i). 21. By attention has been drawn to Chapter VI of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. Rule 62 lays down how the amount of pension is to be determined. The Rule 65(i) lays down that the full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given is a matter of course or unless the services rendered has really been approved. The Rule 65(2) elucidates the said expression "approved service" and the consequence of disapproval. If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount it thinks proper. Thus, pension cannot be claimed by a Government servant as of a right and the Government reserves its power for reduce the pension of a Government servant whose service has not been thoroughly satisfactory. Even after the pension is sanctioned the Government has its power under Rule 800 to withdraw of withhold either permanently or temporarily the entire or a part of the pension because of his misconduct. Even after the pension is sanctioned the Government has its power under Rule 800 to withdraw of withhold either permanently or temporarily the entire or a part of the pension because of his misconduct. Such misconduct is obviously other than those which are covered by Notes 2 and 4 to Rule 65. 22. The view I have taken in this case is in accord with the scheme of the West Bengal (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. The Chapter XII of the Rules deals with application for grant of pension. The Rule 128 provides that subject to the provisions of Rules 8 and 10, pension once sanctioned after final assessment shall not be reduced to the disadvantage of the Government servant unless such revision becomes necessary on account of detention of electrical erors. Thus, the Rule 128 itself contemplates that Rules 8 & 10 can be involed to reduce pension after the same is sanctioned. Thus, these two Rules are in nature of exceptions to the provision of Rule 128 that a pension once sanctioned is not to be reduced. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner has correctly pointed out the difference in language used in Rule 10. The Governor under Rule 10 reserves himself right to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof either permanently or for a specified period if the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered on re-employment Thus, the Rule 10 expressly provides for withholding or withdrawal of pension as a result of finding that misconduct or negligence was committed during the period of service of a Government servant. Rule 8(i) starts by providing that future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension. Rule unlike Rule 10 does not provide that the grave misconduct mentioned therein may be in respect of the acts committed during period of service and before. The procedure for bolding an equity about the misconduct or a pensioner is different under Rule 8 from the procedure contemplated under Rule 10. Under proviso (a) to Rule 10(i) a departmental proceeding which is pending at the date of the retirement of a Government servant may be continued and concluded in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service. Under proviso (a) to Rule 10(i) a departmental proceeding which is pending at the date of the retirement of a Government servant may be continued and concluded in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service. Rule 10 proviso (b) provides for Institution of a departmental proceeding on the charge of misconduct or negligence committed during the period of service even after retirement of an officer subject to the following conditions (i) sanction of the Governor, (ii) enquiry shall be in respect of events which took place within three years before such institution, and (iii) the procedure of departmental proceeding for dismissal shall be applicable and the enquiry shall be conducted in such a place and by such authority as the Governor may direct. The Rule 10 also provides that a judicial proceeding contemplated under the said Rule if not instituted while the officer was in service shall be instituted in respect of the cause of action which arose or an event which took place not more than three years before such institution. Thus, Rule 10 provides a period of limitation both for departmental proceeding and judicial proceeding in respect of the acts of grave misconduct or negligence committed during the period of service of a Government servant. 23. In the instant case, the Collector of Calcutta purported to withhold the petitioner's pension on the ground that the petitioner was guilty for shortages of stamps during his service as a Treasurer of the Collectorate, even before the petitioner's pension was sanctioned. Therefore, this exercise of power under Rule 8(i) was not permissible in law. The Collector in the instant case did not also comply with Rule 8(3) read with Rule 8(i). The Collector, as the pension sanctioning authority, has power to withhold or withdraw a pension upon finding of guilt of grave misconduct only after complying with sub-rule (3) of Rule 8. Sub-rule (3) provides that the pension sanctioning authority shall first form a prima facie opinion that the pensioneris guilty of grave misconduct, then it shall serve upon the pensioner a notice, specifying the action proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit his representation. Thereafter, the authority after taking into consideration, representation, if any, may withhold or withdraw a pension. Thereafter, the authority after taking into consideration, representation, if any, may withhold or withdraw a pension. In the instant case, the Collector forms a primafacie opinion under Rule 8(3) but did not record his finding in terms of Rule 8(2) that the petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct. In the absence of such finding in terms of Rule 8(3) the Collector, in any event, was no competent to exercise his power under Rule 8(i). The Collector, in his order dated 9th October, 1975 had, inta alia, stated above facts prima facie prove grave misconduct's. He withhold the petitioner's pension until further orders. 24. Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the respondents, stated before me that the Collector acted in pursuance of the Memorandum dated 4th September, 1975 by issued the Deputy Secretary Board of Revenue which was endorsed by the Commissioner Presidency Division. Neither the Board of Revenue nor the Commissioner, Presidency Division had issued any show cause notice upon the petitioner regarding withholding of his pension or deduction from his Security deposit. Neither the Board nor the Commissioner gave any hearing to the petitioner. Neither the Memorandum of the Deputy Secretary of the Board of Revenue for the endorsement or the Commissioner, Presidency Division contained any finding that the petitioner was responsible for the loss of stamps or that he was guilty of grave misconduct. There is considerable substance in the submission of the petitioner that Shri N. Ganguli the then Collector was disqualified from passing the impugned orders for deduction from the petitioners' security bond on account of the alleged loss of stamps and also for withholding or withdrawing the petitioner's pension and gratuity. The Commissioner Presidency Division had severly criticized him regarding the alleged taking over and making over of charge of Treasureship when the petitioner retiled. Shri N. Ganguli was ultimately transferred from the post of Collector. Therefore, these could be a reasonable apprehension in the petitioner's mind that Shri N. Ganguly could not fairly and impartially decided the matters. In this Case proof of actual bias was not necessary. It would be sufficient to show that he reasonably apprehended that a bias might have operated against him. [Vide (4) Manek Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and Others, AIR 1957 SC 425 ]. 25. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. In this Case proof of actual bias was not necessary. It would be sufficient to show that he reasonably apprehended that a bias might have operated against him. [Vide (4) Manek Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and Others, AIR 1957 SC 425 ]. 25. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Chowdhury the learned Advocate for the respondent, that the writ petition in respect of the enforcement of the security furnished by the petitioner is not maintainable. The decision in Marwar Tent Factory v. Union of India (Supra), and the cases noted therein establish that a writ application in the present circumstances is maintainable. 26. I am accordingly make these Rules subsolute. Let a writ in the nature of Certiorari issue quashing the impugned order under Benefit Rules withholding the petitioner's pension. I quash also the orders passed for deducting Rs. 43,011/20 p. from the security furnished along with the bond dated 8th September, 1939. Let a writ in the nature of Mandamus issue commanding the respondents to forbear from giving effect of further effect to the impugned order under Rule 8(i) also command the respondents to forbear from adjusting the sale proceeds of G.P. Notes sold on 17th September, 1975 without any decree of order or competent court of law. Liberty is given to the respondents to proceed according to law. The operation of this order will remain stayed for four weeks from date, as mentioned below. The 31st day of January, 1977.