Judgment Nagendra Rai and Radlia Mohan Prasad, JJ. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing three annexures, namely, anne-xures-6, 12 and 13. By Annexure-6 the petitioners prayer for payment of salary etc. , for the period of his suspension (from 1-11-1972 to 19-7-1974) has been rejected by order dated 12-10-1974. By Annexure-12 the prayer of the petitioner for payment of salary etc. during the period of his compulsory retirement has been rejected by order dated 28-8-1990. By Annexure-13 a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner after a gap of about four years from the date of his retirement by order dated 30-1-1990. All the above orders have been passed by respondent No.4 (Collector, Begusarai ). 2. The petitioner was appointed as karamchari in the year 1945 in the Revenue Department by the Collector, Moughyr. In the year 1972 while he was posted as Karamchari at Lakhisarai he was put under suspension on 10-10-1972 vide Annexure-1 on the allegation that he granted receipt to one Kunj Bihari Singh without any authority. Thereafter, it appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and charged were served upon him vide Annexure-2. The petitioner submitted his explanation vide Annexure-3. In the meantime, district of Monghyr was bifurcated into the districts, namely, Monghyr and Begusarai and the petitioners services were transferred to begusarai district. There Sri S. J. David, Deputy Collectur was appointed as Enquiry Officer and after conclusion of the departmental proceeding he submitted enquiry report on 23-5-1974 vide Annexure-4. He did not find charges levelled against the petitioner to be true and exonerated him from the charges. The Collector, Begusarai (respondent No.4)did not agree with the same and directed the Enquiry Officer to hold a fresh enquiry and thereafter he held a fresh enquiry and submitted bis report, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to this writ application According to the said report, the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges except charge No.4 which was with regard to the absence of the petitioner from the duty without obtaining permission from the competent authority. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order as contained in Annexures-5/2 giving warning to the petitioner and further directing that the said fact be recorded in his character roll. 3. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order as contained in Annexures-5/2 giving warning to the petitioner and further directing that the said fact be recorded in his character roll. 3. It further appears that is an appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of the Division he ordered for initiation of the fresh proceeding against the petitioner and in accordance with the said direction respondent No.4 initiated a fresh departmental proceeding vide annexure-7 on 20-5-1976 and Sri T. N. Mishra was appointed Enquiry officer. While the proceeding was pending the petitioner was compulsorily retired by respondent No.4 by an order dated 20-7-1976 vide annexure-8. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Special Tribunal which was constituted to review the cases of compulsory retirement of the servant of the State Government and the special Tribunal set aside the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner by order dated 24-11-1977 (vide Annexure-9 ). Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated and he functioned at different places and finally superannuated on 28-2-1987. 4. It is to be mentioned here that during the period while the petitioner was in service he represented before the authority for the payment of his salary for the period of his suspension which is as stated above was rejected by Annexure-6. On 30-1-1990 an order was passed by the collector, Begusarai to initiate a fresh departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide Annexure-13 and the prayer of the petitioner for making payment of salary etc. for the period during which he was out of employment as a result of compulsory retirement i. e.1-8-1976 to 23-5-1978 was also rejected by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-12. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which the facts stated above on behalf of the petitioner have been admitted but it is stated that as there were charges against the peti. tioner and there was a direction of the Commissioner to initiate a fresh departmental proceeding, the present departmental proceeding was initiated vide Annexure-13. It is also stated that no order can be passed for payment of salary either for the period of suspension or for the period during which he was out of employment unless a decision is taken in the departmental proceeding. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two points. It is also stated that no order can be passed for payment of salary either for the period of suspension or for the period during which he was out of employment unless a decision is taken in the departmental proceeding. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two points. Firstly, be submitted that as the petitioner superannuated on 28-2-1987, no departmental proceeding can be initiated under Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rule) after retirement. He further submitted that according to the proviso (a) (ii) of Rule 43 (b) a departmental proceeding can be initiated after retirement only in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the initiation of such proceeding. He also submitted that the order for initiating departmental proceeding was passed by the Commissioner in the year 1976. As a matter of fact, a proceeding was initiated in the year 1976 which came to an end because of passing of the order of compulsory. retirement and the present departmental proceeding has been initiated afresh and that too practically after about 15 years for which no valid explanation has been given. Learned counsel for the etitioner also submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get his salary for the period of suspension as he has not been awarded any punishment in the departmental proceeding as the commissioner in the earlier departmental proceeding ordered for initiation of fresh proceeding. He also submitted that as the Tribunal found the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner passed by the Collector illegal and directed for his reinstatement the petitioner is entitled for salary for the aforesaid period. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has tried to justify the action taken by the respondents and contended that the respondent No.4 is justified in law in initiating the departmental proceeding in view of the direction of the Commissioner to initiate a fresh proceeding. 8. From the narration of the fact it is evident that the petitioner superannuated on 28-2-1987 and the allegation against the petitioner is that he issued receipt without any authority in the year 1972 in the name of one Sri Kunj Bihari Singh and the present proceeding was initiated on 30-1-1990. The question is whether the respondent No.4 can initiate a departmental proceeding after lapse of such time. The question is whether the respondent No.4 can initiate a departmental proceeding after lapse of such time. Learned counsel for the respondents took shelter under the provisions of Rule 43 of Bihar Pension rules for justifying the initiation of the proceeding. It will be useful to quote the relevant provisions of Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules : "43 (b ). The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specific period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: provided that- (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment; (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State government ; (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings ; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made. " from the bare perusal of the said provisions it is clear that the State-Government has right to initiate a departmental proceeding even against a Government employee who has retired but according to the proviso such proceeding shall not be initiated save with the sanction of the State government and shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the initiation of such proceedings. 9. In the present case, as stated above, admittedly the allegations relate to an event which took place in the year 1972 and the present proceeding was initiated in 1990 and as such according to Rule 43 (b) proviso (a) (ii), the present proceeding could not have been initiated as the respondent no.4 had no authority in law to initiate the proceeding in respect of an event which took place much over 4 years. The alternative submission made on behalf of the State was that the present proceeding will be treated as continuation of the earlier proceeding. As noted above, the earlier proceeding came to an end and then there was direction by the commissioner to initiate a fresh proceeding. As a matter of fact fresh proceeding was initiated in the year 1976 and that proceeding also came to an end because of order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner by the respondent No.4. Moreover, from the perusal of the order contained in Annexure-13 it appears that the present proceeding has been initiated afresh. Thus, we do not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the State that the present proceeding is a continuation of the earlier proceeding and that the same can continue in spite of the specific bar as mentioned above. Accordingly, in our opinion, the present proceeding is not maintainable in law. 10. This apart, there is another ground to hold that this departmental proceeding cannot be allowed to continue as admittedly this proceedings has been initiated after about 15 years of the order passed by the commissioner to initiate a fresh proceeding. No explanation worth noticing has been mentioned in the counter-affidavit justifying for such along delay in initiating the proceeding. On the other hand, the counter-affidavit indicates that the main object of initiating the present proceeding is to prevent the petitioner from claiming his legal dues after retirement. In our opinion, such action on the part of the respondent cannot be justified either in law or in fact. The apex court in the case of The State of madhya Pradesh V/s. Bani Singh and anothers, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308 held that if there is an inordinate delay in issuing a charge memo and there is no satisfactory explanation for the same, the proceeding is fit to be quashed. In our opinion, in the present case, as stated above, no explanation has been given for such a long delay in initiating the departmental proceeding. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the departmental proceeding should not be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the order dated 10-1-1990 as contained in Annexure-13 initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner is quashed. So far as the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary etc. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the departmental proceeding should not be allowed to continue. Accordingly, the order dated 10-1-1990 as contained in Annexure-13 initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner is quashed. So far as the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary etc. of his suspension period which has been rejected by the Collector by Annexure-6 as well as the claim of the petitioner for payment of his salary etc. for. period of his compulsory retirement which has been rejected by the Collector by annexure-12 are concerned, we are of the opinion that there is no justification for not paying the salary etc. for the aforesaid periods. As stated above, no punishment has been awarded to the petitioner in any departmental proceeding and as such his salary for the period of suspension cannot be withheld on any ground. As noticed above, the petitioner has not been punished by any authority and even punishment awarding writing has been set aside by the appellate court. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to withhold the salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension. The order of compulsory retirement was set aside by Special tribunal vide Annexure-9 and as such the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service during that period and he is entitled for the salary etc. for the aforesaid period. We are satisfied from the facts of the case that the petitioner has been deprived of his salary etc. for such a long period due to laches on the part of the respondents and as such the petitioner is entitled for salary with interest at the rate of 12% from the due date till the amount is paid to him. 11. In the result, we allow this writ application and quash Annexures-6 12 and 13 and direct the authority concerned to make payment of salary etc. of the petitioner for the period of his suspension as well as for the period of his compulsory retirement with interest at the rate of 12% within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. As the petitioner has superannuated, the authority is also directed to pass order for payment of post retirement benefits to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. As the petitioner has superannuated, the authority is also directed to pass order for payment of post retirement benefits to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ application allowed.