JUDGMENT : S. Ali Ahmad, J. - The petitioner was a Senior Malaria Inspector. After a departmental proceeding his services were terminated by an ORDER :contained in Annexure 5' the operative portion of which reads as follows:- ^^Jh feJ dh lsok fnukad 29-10-74 ls lekIr dh tkrh gSA^^ The ORDER :terminating the services of the petitioner was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 352 of 1979 when a Bench of this Court, while dismissing the application, observed that the apprehension of the petitioner that the ORDER :will adversely affect payment of his gratuity and other benefits had no foundation. The petitioner thereafter applied for preparation of his pension papers and for payment of gratuity. By ORDER :as contained in Annexures 6 and 7, the authorities held that since the services of the petitioner had been terminated ^^lsok lekIr dh xbZ gS^^ he had forfeited the right to get either pension or gratuity. Against that ORDER :, the petitioner has come to this Court and prays to quash the ORDER :s as contained in Annexures 6 and 7 with a further prayer to issue mandamus directing, the authorities to grant him pension and gratuity as provided in law. 2. Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 reads thus: "No pension may be granted to a Government servant dismissed or removed, for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, but to Government servants so dismissed or removed compassionate allowances may be granted when they are deserving of special consideration, provided that the allowance granted to any Government servant, shall not exceed two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on medical certificate." A perusal of this rule makes it abundantly clear that the Government may withhold payment of pension to a Government servant who has been dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency. There is no other provision in the Pension Rules which enables the State to withhold pension of a Government servant. The crux of the question, therefore, is as to whether the petitioner was dismissed or removed. As I have quoted above, the services of the petitioner were terminated ^^lsok lekIr dh tkrh gSA^^ . There is no other provision in the Pension Rules which enables the State to withhold pension of a Government servant. The crux of the question, therefore, is as to whether the petitioner was dismissed or removed. As I have quoted above, the services of the petitioner were terminated ^^lsok lekIr dh tkrh gSA^^ . According to Legal Glossary which has been prepared by the Government of India, in the Ministry of Law and Justice ^^lsok lekfIr^^ is the Hindi of 'termination of service; whereas the Hindi of 'removal' is ^^gVkuk^^ 'Dismissal' is termed as ^^inP;qr^^ in Hindi and 'discharge' as ^^lsoksUeqDr^^ . Undisputedly the punishment given to the petitioner was ^^lsok lekfIr^^ i.e., termination of service. Mr. Government Pleader No. 5 supporting the ORDER :s contended that petitioner's' ^^lsok lekfIr^^ has to be read in the context of the fact that his services were terminated on account of certain misconduct which was found against him in the departmental enquiry. According to him, therefore, the petitioner's "Seva Samapti'' meant removal and not termination. It is difficult to accept this argument. Even after holding a Government servant to be guilty of misconduct, the State may not dismiss or remove him from service, it may only terminate his services. That appears to have been done in this case also, otherwise it will have to be presumed for which there is no basis, that the authorities did not understand as to what they meant by saying "Seva Samapt ki jati hai". For these reasons I am of the view that the petitioner was not removed from service nor he was dismissed from service. Rule 46 of the Pension Rules, therefore, had no application and the ORDER :s, therefore, as contained in Annexures 6 and 7 are bad. 3. In the result, the application is allowed, the ORDER :s as contained in Annexurs 6 and 7 are quashed and the authorities are directed to grant pension and gratuity, besides other benefits which may be admissible to the petitioner in law, expeditiously. There will be no ORDER :as to costs.