Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner retired as Panchayat Sevak with, effect from 28th february.1989. Earlier, he was given second time bound promotion with effect from 1-4-1984, Initially provisional pension of Rs.813/- was being paid to the petitioner but that was subsequently stopped. A notice was issued to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/-, Being the excess paid to him for not completing the schemes undertaken by him though he had been paid in respect thereof. The petitioner was also required to refund a sum Rs.48.000/- and odd. which, it is said, was received by him by grant of promotion increment illegally. The provisional pension which was being paid to the petitioner was also stopped. 3. So far as the question of refund of amount paid to the petitioner on account of grant of second time bound promotion is concerned, counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no justification for directing the petitioner to refund that amount. The State granted him that increment, and he simply accepted it. He was not at fault. Under the rules after attainding the age of 50 a Government servant could be exempted from the requirement of passing nothing and drafting examination. The petitioner had attained the age of 50 and, therefore, if the Government granted him time bound promotion, and gave him the benefit of higher scale, that should be deemed to be an examption in favour of the petitioner from passing the departmental examination, which was within the authority of the Government to grant. In any event, since the payment said to have been wrongly made, was hot on account of either mistake or deliberate conduct on the part of the petitioner, he cannot be penalised, particularly at a stage after he has retired from service; 4. The submission of the petitioner has substance. Assuming that the promotion granted was provisional, that promotion was never cancelled by the government. The petitioner admittedly was above the age of 50, when second time bound promotion was granted to him. and it was open to the government to grant relaxation in his favour Since the promotion was granted to him by the Government and increments were also duly sanctioned there is no justification for requiring the petitioner to refund the amount said to have been paid in excess. and it was open to the government to grant relaxation in his favour Since the promotion was granted to him by the Government and increments were also duly sanctioned there is no justification for requiring the petitioner to refund the amount said to have been paid in excess. If the Government wishes to take action for recovery of the amount said to, have been illegally paid to the petitioner, it must take action against the officer or officers who sanctioned the second time bound promotion, and sanctioned subsequent increments in pay etc. 5. The second ground on which the deductions are sought to be made is that the petitioner was entrusted with certain schemes, and having received payment in respect of those schemes he did not complete those schemes. The learned counsel for the petitoner contends that he had done all that he was required to do, and there was no justification for deduction of any amount on account of non-completion of those schemes. This obviously involves a disputed question as to whether the petitioner was liable to refund any amount on account of non-completion of schemes entrusted to him. Admittedly, no enquiry has been made into the matter affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The unilateral fixation of liability against the petitioner cannot be justified. 6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that enhanced pay and increment received by the petitioner namely the benefit by which the petitioner deprived on account of second time bound promotion and increment shall not be disturbed, and the petitioner should not be called upon to refund that amount If at all, that amount may be recovered from the officers who wrongly granted that promotion or sanctioned the increment. So far as the deduction account of non-competition of schemes is concerned, since no proceeding has been initiated under rule 43 (b)of the Bihar Pension Rules, no deduction can be made under the Bihar Pension rules and the State will necessarily have to seek their remedy before ordinary civil court. Thereafter, it will be open to the Bihar State to recover that , amount in accordance with law. It may be clarified that if not under the pension Rules, ordinary civil liability of a Government servant is always there and cap be enforced through the civil court. Thereafter, it will be open to the Bihar State to recover that , amount in accordance with law. It may be clarified that if not under the pension Rules, ordinary civil liability of a Government servant is always there and cap be enforced through the civil court. A retired Government servant can always be proceeded against in a court of competent civil jurisdiction or before a criminal court in cases of offences committed by him. 7. In this view of the matter, the final pension of the petitioner must now be fixed. Since no proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, there is no justification for making any deduction from the pension to which the petitioner is entitled. I have already held that so far as refund of amount representing payment on account of increment, promotion etc. is concerned, the same should not be deducted from the pension payable to the petitioner. 8. The respondents are directed to recalculate the pension payable to the petitioner and fix his pension within a period of twelve weeks from today. This writ petition stands disposed of. Order accordingly.