By Court : The petitioner seeks the quashing of Annexure 6 in so far as it wit holds the payment of his full pension until a report from the Central Bureau of Investigation in a certain matter, which is not clear from the order contained in annexure, is received. 2. The facts are in brief : The petitioner started his career as an Inspector of Industries in the year 1950 and when he had reached the post of Development Officer, he was put under suspension on certain charges. Before any decision could be taken in the departmental proceeding started against him, his due date of superannuation was reached. Such date was the 19th January, 1977 which will mean that the petitioner retired in the fore noon of the 31st January, 1977 about a year and a half thereafter, i.e. on the 25th July, 1978 the petitioner was served with the orders contained in annexure 6'. The orders were that since the petitioner would be deemed to have retired with effect from 1st of February. 1977 his suspension order was being withdrawn. The next part of the order, however, was that be would be paid his full pension and also the other emoluments, for the period of his suspension, only after the Central Bureau of Investigation has submitted its report, in regard to the charges which bad been levelled against him. Payment of provisional pension was, however, allowed to him under this order. 3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the orders contained in Annexure 6, in so far as it related to the withholding of his full pension until receiving of the report from the Central Bureau of Investigation, was illegal and, therefore, it should be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that a Govt. servant even after superannuation can no doubt be proceeded against in respect of his misconduct or negligence during the tenure of his office, but then there must be a proceeding in that regard pending at the time of his retirement. If no such proceeding is pending at that time, the pension or any other emoluments, which is available to (illeg) retiring Government servant cannot be with held. If no such proceeding is pending at that time, the pension or any other emoluments, which is available to (illeg) retiring Government servant cannot be with held. In the instant case, it is stated that though the departmental proceeding had been started against the petitioner, when he was in active service, but that departmental proceeding was not ordered to be continued by any authority of the State Government. On the contrary the petitioner was permitted to retire on the due date. Such being the position that part of the order in Annexure 6 by which his full pension was being withheld, would be illegal. 4. There is no counter affidavit on behalf of the State to the definite assertion of the petitioner that although a departmental proceeding had been started against him, when he was in office, but such departmental proceeding bad not been ordered to be continued after his retirement. This clearly means that after the petitioner's retirement, the departmental proceedings also got terminated. Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 lays down relating to grant of pension. Under this rule future good conduct is implied condition for every grant of a pension. The State Govt. reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The State Govt. bas also a right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Govt. by his misconduct or negligence, during his service. The State Govt. has also the right to order recovery from his pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Govt. which is found established in a departmental or judicial proceedings against the pensioner. There are, however, limits to those rights of the State Govt. Such limitation are that if the departmental proceeding is not instituted while the Govt. servant was on duty, either before retirement or during employment, it shall not be instituted, save and except with the sanction of the State Govt. nor shall it be instituted in respect of an event which took place beyond four years before institution of such proceedings. 5. servant was on duty, either before retirement or during employment, it shall not be instituted, save and except with the sanction of the State Govt. nor shall it be instituted in respect of an event which took place beyond four years before institution of such proceedings. 5. Now in the Instant case, it is not disputed that a departmental proceeding was in fact started against the petitioner when he was in service. Before, however, such departmental proceeding could end, the petitioner got superannuated and thereafter the State Govt. became silent as to the fate of that departmental proceedings whether it was to continue or whether it was to be dropped. Since it was not ordered to be continued, by the superannuation of the petitioner, it will be deemed to have dropped against him. It is, no doubt, true that the Govt. could restart that proceeding, but for that purpose it has to be within the limitations laid down under rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules. Be that as it may, the position in the instant case being that there is no order by the State Govt. to continue on the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, the withholding of the petitioner's full pension, on the ground that it should remain withheld until the Central Bureau of Investigation submits its report, becomes wholly irrelevant. May be that the Central Bureau of Investigation was asked to start investigation into the charges levelled against the petitioner, but since that departmental proceeding is no more alive, whether the Central Bureau of Investigation reports or keeps mum, will have no effect in so far as it concerned the petitioner's right to receive his pension on his superannuation. 6. In such view of the matter, the order contained in Annexure 6' is so far as it with• holds the petitioner's right to receive his full pension, is quashed. The application is allowed, but without costs 7. We may observe that in case the Govt. still thinks that the petitioner should be proceeded against, it will be at liberty to do so, provided such action is taken within the period as specified In the Bihar Pension Rules and in accordance with law. Application allowed.