ORDER 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. The instant writ application was filed on 24.8.1993 challenging the initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioners after his superannuation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner over superannuated from service with effect from 31st January, 1993. After his superannuation ninety percent of the pension amount was provisionally released in his favour, but no payment was made to him by way of gratity. The departmental proceeding was initiated on 17th July, 1993 and that was challenged in the instant writ application. During the pendency of the writ position a show cause (Annexure-9) was issued on 27.9.1993 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action be net taken against him under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules withholding seventy present of his pension. The same was challenged by amending the writ application. Thereafter on order dated 13.12.1993 (Annexure-11) was passed in exercise of power under Rules withholding seventy percent of the pension payable to the petitioner. The aforesaid order (Annexure-11) has also been challenged by an amendment of the writ petition. 2. At the hearing of the writ petition the order initiating the departmental proceeding has not been supported, obviously because after the petitioner had superannuated from service, the Government lost disciplinary control over the petitioner and there was no question of proceeding against him in the departmental proceeding. However, counsel for the State submits that the show cause (Annexure 9) and the final order passed on 13.12.1993 (Annexure-11) under Rule 139 of Bihar Pension Rule are fully justified. 3. At this stage we may notice that in the show cause dated 27.9.1993 (Annexure 9) it is virtually conceded by the State that the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules could not be initiated against the petitioner, since the incident giving rise to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner took place more than four years before the institution of the proceeding. However the Government exercised its power under Rule 139(a) and (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Rule 43(a) of the Rules provides that future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pensions and the Government has the right of withholding or with drawing a pension or any part of it for reasons mentioned in the Rule. However the Government exercised its power under Rule 139(a) and (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Rule 43(a) of the Rules provides that future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pensions and the Government has the right of withholding or with drawing a pension or any part of it for reasons mentioned in the Rule. Rules 43(b) of the Rules further provides that a pension or any part of it may be withheld permanently or for a specified period if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary less to the Government by misconduct or negligence during his service, including service rendered on re-employments after retirement. The proviso, however, places restriction on exercise of such power and provides that if a departmental proceeding had not been initiated before the retirement of the Government servant or during re-employment, it shall not be instituted expect with the previous sanction of the State Government and it can be instituted only in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. 4. In the instant case it appears that in connection with some work executed in the year 1986-87 the Government had found some deficiencies. An order was passed to recover a sum of Rs.93,520.70 paise from the petitioner. The same was challenged by petitioner before this court in CWJC No. 6696 of 1992 and the writ application was allowed by an order 16th November, 1992 holding the order to be bad, as it was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Opportunity, however, was given to the State to initiate a fresh proceeding, if so advised, in accordance with law. It is not disputed that thereafter no further action was taken till the petitioners superannuated from service on 31st January, 1993. A departmental proceeding was ultimately sought to be instituted on 17.7.1993, which has been challenged in the instant writ petition. 5. The only question, which, therefore, survives consideration is whether the order passed under Rule 139(a) and (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is justified. This takes us to a consideration of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. A departmental proceeding was ultimately sought to be instituted on 17.7.1993, which has been challenged in the instant writ petition. 5. The only question, which, therefore, survives consideration is whether the order passed under Rule 139(a) and (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is justified. This takes us to a consideration of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. Rule 139 to the extent it is relevant provides as follow:- "139 (a) The full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanutisning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as in thinks proper. (c) The State Government reserve to themselves the powers of revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. No such power shall, however, be exercised with out giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, or any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the passion was first passed" 6. There is no doubt that Rule 139 provides that if the service of a Government servant, who has superannuated, has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. However, Rule 139 (c) makes it clear that the State Government may revise the order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if, they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. In the instant case it is not the case of the State that the service record of the petitioner showed that his service was not satisfactory. In fact, the show cause notice (Annexure-9) issued to the petitioner under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rule refers to specific acts of misconduct alleged against the petitioner in connection with the execution of works in the year 1986-87. In fact, the show cause notice (Annexure-9) issued to the petitioner under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rule refers to specific acts of misconduct alleged against the petitioner in connection with the execution of works in the year 1986-87. There are more than one reason to hold that in the facts of this case the proceeding under Rule 139 was not maintainable. Firstly, if the Government wished to reduce the pension payable to the petitioner on the ground that he had committed an set of misconduct, the case being squarely covered by the Rule 43 (b) a proceeding could have been initiated if the incident giving rise to the proceeding had taken place within four years of the date of institution of the proceeding. It is conceded in the show cause notice itself (Annexure-9) that the proceeding under Rule 43 (b) could not be initiated in the facts of the case. Secondly, Rule 139 (b) provides for the order that the sanctioning authority may pass, if the service of a Government servant is not found to have been thoroughly satisfactory Rule 139 (c) empowers the State Government to revise an order passed by subordinate authorities in regard to pension, if the State Government is satisfied that the service of the petitioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. Even if the power to be exercised under Rule 139 (b) is read in the light of the provision of Rule 139 (c) the state Government can reduce the pension payable to a retired Government servant if (a) they are satisfied that the service of the petitioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or (b) there was proof of grave misconduct on this part while in service. So far as the first condition is concerned, the same is not fulfilled, because it is not the case of state that the record of service of the petitioner was unsatisfactory. So far as the second condition is concerned the same is also not fulfilled, because there is no proof of grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner while in service. Neither in a court of law nor in a departmental proceeding had any charges been proved against the petitioner. So far as the second condition is concerned the same is also not fulfilled, because there is no proof of grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner while in service. Neither in a court of law nor in a departmental proceeding had any charges been proved against the petitioner. The allegations remained more allegations and they were sought to be made use of for the purpose of exercise of powers under Rule 139 (a) and (b) of the Rules. In the absence of proof of grave misconduct, as distinguished from more allegations of misconduct, the power under Rule 139 (a) and (b) could not be exercised by the State Government. In these circumstances, we have no doubt that even if a wider meaning is given to Rule 139 (b) by reading the said rule in the light of Rule 139 (c) the power conferred thereby is not wide enough to confer on the Government jurisdiction and authority to reduce the pension of a retired Government servant without proof of grave misconduct in the absence of unsatisfactory service record, such grave misconduct may either be proved before a court of law, or even in a departmental proceeding. That not being the case the impugned order reducing the pension of the petitioner is wholly unjustified. 7. In the circumstance, this writ application is allowed and the departmental proceeding initiated on 17.7.1993 as well as the show cause notice issued (Annexure-9) dated 27.9.1993 and the final order dated 13.12.1993 (Annexue-11) under Rule 139 (a) and (b) are herby quashed. The respondents are directed to grant to the petitioner the benefit of full pension and gratuity in accordance with rule. Applications allowed.