Order The petitioner, a retired Superintending Engineer of the Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, has challenged the order dated 17.12.1996, issued by the State Government, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure 11, by which only 90% pension has been fixed. In other words, 10% pension has been reduced by the aforesaid order. He has also prayed for payment of 100% pension and other benefits with interest @ 18% per annum. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the River Valley Project, now Water Resources Department, in the year 1960. In 1977, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 1976, and was confirmed on the said post in the year 1985. 3. On 29.6.1987, the petitioner was promoted to the post of the Superintending Engineer. From June, 1987 to January, 1989, he was posted in Barrage Circle, Birpur and thereafter, he was transferred to Patna and superannuated from the Government service on 31.3.1995. 4. While the petitioner was in service, on 12.5.1989 an explanation was sought for from him with regard to certain irregularities in the embankment work in Ghonghardiha western flank in between 42.43 to 52.53 K.Ms. It was alleged that without approved estimate and without existing cross section, the work was done, as a result of which the Government suffered a loss. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.11.1989 denying the aforesaid allegation and sought for certain documents to file a detailed explanation. On 31.8.1990, again an explanation was sought for from the petitioner with regard to illegality I irregularity committed by him at Birpur in allotting work by issuance of tender. The allegations were with regard to periods 1987-88 and 1988-89. A copy of the said show-cause notice has been appended as Annexure 3. The petitioner filed a petition on 20.9.1990 demanding certain documents for submitting explanation. The concerned authority of the State Government, by letter dated 26.11.1991 (Annexure 5) asked the petitioner to peruse the relevant documents in the office on 9.12.1991. He further directed that the documents relating to allotment of tender could be inspected by visiting the offices of Birpur Circle and Birpur Division. 5. According to the petitioner, no opportunity was given to inspect the documents and his efforts to obtain documents from Birpur also failed. Vide Annexure 2, he requested that all concerned documents be supplied to him. He further directed that the documents relating to allotment of tender could be inspected by visiting the offices of Birpur Circle and Birpur Division. 5. According to the petitioner, no opportunity was given to inspect the documents and his efforts to obtain documents from Birpur also failed. Vide Annexure 2, he requested that all concerned documents be supplied to him. He also denied the allegations made against him. In spite of that, no documents were made available to him and, thereafter, he filed an explanation on 12.2.1992 on the basis of his memory and materials in his possession, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 7. It is asserted by the petitioner that so long he remained in service, he was never communicated as to what orders have been passed after filing of the aforesaid explanation. 6. It further appears that there was a third allegation against the petitioner to the effect that while he was posted at Birganj, he committed irregularities and caused loss to the Government with regard to post facto sanction of jeeps by subordinate officers. In the said case, on the basis of the allegation, punishment was awarded to the petitioner, against which the petitioner filed a writ application and, thereafter, the punishments in regard to third allegation have been recalled by the Department. 7. It is also stated by the petitioner that a person, junior to him, was made Incharge Chief Engineer and he came to this court in C.W.J.C. No. 1780 of 1994 and pursuant to the direction passed by this court, the Government took a decision on 24th of November, 1994, that a post had been kept reserved till the Government took a decision with regard to allegation against him. 8. The stand of the State is that unless the service rendered by the petitioner is thoroughly satisfactory, the full pension cannot be granted as a matter of course. The petitioner has been granted reduced pension on account of proved charges of irregularities committed during his tenure as the Superintending Engineer, which have rendered his service to be unsatisfactory. The petitioner was subjected to summary proceeding under Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules during service period and it remained inconclusive due to unavoidable reasons and after his superannuation, the department has proceeded under the Bihar Pension Rules withholding ten percent of his pension. The petitioner was subjected to summary proceeding under Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules during service period and it remained inconclusive due to unavoidable reasons and after his superannuation, the department has proceeded under the Bihar Pension Rules withholding ten percent of his pension. It is further stated that while the petitioner was in service, he was posted as the Superintending Engineer, Barrage Circle, Birpur, in the year 1987-88 and he committed irregularities during his tenure ranging from irregular work allotment to improper execution thereof. He flouted all the norms in allotment of work to his favourite agency and deliberately splitted the work in several small groups and one particular agency was favoured with number of groups without any reason. An explanation was sought and after his explanation, he was inflicted punishment of censure and 5% deduction in his admissible pension. The service record of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and as such in exercise of power under Rule 139(a) and (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the impugned order has been passed after considering the explanation of the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has also filed amply to the counter affidavit and reiterated the same very facts and annexed certain documents. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no order for reduction of pension under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') can be passed unless a gross misconduct has been proved either in a departmental or judicial proceeding. In the case of the petitioner, no judicial proceeding or departmental proceeding was initiated with regard to those two allegations so long the petitioner was in service, now in view of the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Rules, the proceeding cannot be initiated with regard to an event, which took place more than four years ago as in this case, the matter relates to 1987-88 and 1988-89, the impugned order under Section 139 of the Rules is vitiated in law. Lastly, he submitted that the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 11, is vitiated because of non-assigning of any reason for withholding the pension. 11. Lastly, he submitted that the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 11, is vitiated because of non-assigning of any reason for withholding the pension. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the pension can be reduced or withheld on two grounds, firstly when the service is not thoroughly satisfactory and secondly when the employee has been found to have been guilty of grave misconduct in departmental or judicial proceeding. In this case, the pension has had been reduced on the proof of misconduct on conclusion of a departmental proceeding. The pension has been withheld under Rule 139 (a) & (b) of the Rules as the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to determine in a departmental proceeding the grave misconduct before reducing the pension of the petitioner under Rule 139 (a) & (b) of the Rules. He also submitted that in all cases of reduction of pension, there should not be a departmental proceeding terminating into a finding of grave misconduct. Rule 43(b) of the Rules can be attracted only in the cases where the pension is withheld on the ground of grave misconduct. In that case, unless in departmental proceeding, a finding to that effect is given, the pension cannot be withheld. He also submitted that a detailed explanation was asked for from the petitioner vide Annexure 9 and, thereafter, the impugned I order has been passed and as such absence of any reason will not be fatal to the order in question. 12. He also submitted that a detailed explanation was asked for from the petitioner vide Annexure 9 and, thereafter, the impugned I order has been passed and as such absence of any reason will not be fatal to the order in question. 12. Both the parties have placed reliance on the provision of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the Pension Rules and, thus, before proceeding to consider the arguments advanced on their behalf, it is apt to quote the said rules, which are as follows :- "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 specified 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 jusicial proceeding to have been guilty of 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; (b) judicial proceedings. if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a); and (c) the Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed." "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 sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it 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 petitioner 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 without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity 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 pension was first passed." 13. A bare reading of Rule 43(b) of the Rules makes it clear that the State Government may withhold or withdraw the pension if the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence during his service tenure. If the departmental proceeding is pending from before, then the said order can be passed even after retirement. If the proceeding is not pending from before then certain conditions have been put by the proviso. One of such conditions is that the departmental proceeding cannot relate to an event, which had taken place more than four years before initiation of such proceeding. Thus, this rule provides that the pension can be withheld only when a judicial or departmental proceeding is instituted either before retirement or thereafter and the delinquent employee has been found to be guilty of grave misconduct. 14. Rule 139 of the Rules provides that the pension is not to be granted as a matter of course. If the service is not thoroughly satisfactory, the pension can be reduced. The State Government has also right of revising the order of pension passed by the subordinate authorities under their control, if the service of the pension has been found to be not thoroughly satisfactory and there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service: However, such power by the State Government is to be exercised after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing and the power is to be exercised within three years from' date of order sanctioning pension was first passed. 15. 15. Thus, Rule 43 of the Rules does not cover a case where the sanctioning authority exercises the power of revision of pension on the ground that the service rendered by the pensioner has not been thoroughly unsatisfactory. After reading the aforesaid provisions, it is, thus, clear that there are two grounds to withhold or reduce the pension, firstly when the sanctioning authority finds that the service is not thoroughly satisfactory and secondly when in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the employee has been found to be guilty of grave misconduct. 16. The true effect and meaning of Rule 43 (b) and Rule 139 (a) & (b) of the Rules have been considered by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari, reported in A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 1853 : 1995 (2) PLJR (SC)51 and at paragraphs 9 and 10, it has been held as follows : "9. So far as that rule is concerned, it empowers the State authorities to decide the question whether full pension should be allowed to a retired Government servant or not in the circumstances contemplated by the Rule. The first circumstance is that if the service of the concerned Government servant is not found to be thoroughly satisfactory, appropriate reduction in the pension can be ordered by the sanctioning authority. The second circumstance is that if it is found that service of the pension was not thoroughly satisfactory or there is proof of grave misconduct on the part of concerned Government servant while in service, the State Government in exercise of revisional power may interfere with the fixation of pension by the subordinate authority. But such power flowing from Rule 139, under the aforesaid circumstances' is further hedged by two conditions. First condition is that revisional power has to be exercised in consonance with the principles of natural justice and secondly such revisional power can be exercised only within three years from the date of the sanctioning of the pension for the first time. A conjoint reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 projects the following picture : - I. A retired Government servant can be proceeded against under Rule 139 and his pension can be appropriately reduced if the sanctioning authority is satisfied that the service record of the respondent was not thoroughly satisfactory. II. A conjoint reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 projects the following picture : - I. A retired Government servant can be proceeded against under Rule 139 and his pension can be appropriately reduced if the sanctioning authority is satisfied that the service record of the respondent was not thoroughly satisfactory. II. Even if the service record of concerned office is found to be thoroughly satisfactory by the sanctioning authority and if the State Government finds that it is not thoroughly satisfactory or that there is proof of grave misconduct of the concerned officer during his service tenure, the State Government can exercise revisional power to reduce the pension but that revision is also subject to the rider that it should be exercised within 3 years from the date, and order sanctioning pension was first passed in his favour by the sanctioning authority and not beyond that period. 10. So far as the second type of cases is concerned the proof of grave misconduct on the part of the concerned Government servant during his service tenure will have to be culled out by the revisional authority from the departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings which might have taken place during his service tenure or from departmental proceedings which may be initiated even after his retirement in such type of cases. But such departmental proceeding will have to comply with the requirement of Rule 43(b). Consequently a retired Government servant can be found guilty of grave misconduct during his service career pursuant to the departmental proceeding conducted against him even after his retirement, but such proceeding could be initiated in connection with only such misconduct which might have taken place within 4 years of the initiation of such departmental proceeding against him. In the present case the respondent retired on 31.1.1993 and the show-cause notice was issued on the ground of grave misconduct on 27.9.1993 and not on the ground that the service record of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory. It was issued by the State Government as sanctioning authority. It had, therefore, to be read with Rule 43(b). Such notice, therefore, could cover any misconduct if committed within 4 years prior to 27.9.1993 meaning thereby it should have been committed during the period from 26.9.1989 up to 31.1.1993 when respondent retired. Only in case of such a misconduct, departmental proceedings could have been initiated against the respondent under Rule 43(b). Such notice, therefore, could cover any misconduct if committed within 4 years prior to 27.9.1993 meaning thereby it should have been committed during the period from 26.9.1989 up to 31.1.1993 when respondent retired. Only in case of such a misconduct, departmental proceedings could have been initiated against the respondent under Rule 43(b). In such proceedings, if he was found guilty of misconduct, he could have been properly proceeded against under Rule 139(a) & (b)." 17. Thus, the point involved is no longer res integra as it is clear that only in the cases, where the authorities decide to take action for reduction of pension on the ground of misconduct, Rule 43(b) is attracted and if the proceeding is not pending before the superannuation of the employee, then it must relate to a misconduct, which is committed within four years prior to the initiation of the proceeding. When the pension is being reduced on the ground that the service was not thoroughly satisfactory, it is not necessary to take recourse to Rule 43(b). The Apex Court clearly stated that the notice in that case was issued on the ground of misconduct and not on the ground that the service record of the petitioner was not thoroughly satisfactory and in that context, it held that the provision of Rule 43(b) was attracted. 18. Even prior to the aforesaid case, which is with regard to Pension Rules in question, the matter was considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma, reported in A.I.R. 1987 Supreme Court 943. Article 470(b) of the U.P. Civil Service Regulations provided that if the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. Article 351-A empowers the Governor to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and also to order recovery from pension of the whole or part of the pension for any pecuniary loss caused to the, Government if the pensioner is found guilty in departmental or in judicial proceedings for any misconduct or negligence during his service. Dealing with the aforesaid provision, which is parimateria to the Pension Rules, the Apex Court held as follows:- "These provisions indicate that a Government servant is entitled to pension but the claim of pension is determined in accordance with statutory rules. No doubt pension is no more a bounty; instead it is a right earned by the Government servant on the basis of length of service, nonetheless grant of full pension depends on the approval of service rendered by the employee. In other words, if the service rendered by the Government servant has not been satisfactory, he would not be entitled to full pension and it would always be open to the Government to withhold or reduce the amount of pension in accordance with the statutary rules. If the Government incurs pecuniary loss on account of misconduct or negligence of a Government servant and if he retired from service before any departmental proceedings are taken against him, it is open to the State Government to initiate departmental proceedings and if in those proceedings he is found guilty of misconduct, negligence or any other such act or omission as a result of which Government is put to pecuniary loss, the State Government is entitled to withhold, reduce or recover the loss suffered by it by forfeiture or reduction of pension." 19. Thus, in that case also, it was held that the pension can be •withheld either on the ground of unsatisfactory service or on the ground of proved misconduct determined in a departmental proceeding. 20. Thus, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that no pension can be reduced even on the ground of unsatisfactory service unless a guilt of misconduct is proved in the departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding, as the case may be, is without any substance in view of the binding precedent of the Apex-Court as mentioned above. 21. Rule 43(b) of the Rules is attracted only in the cases where the sanctioning authority intends to reduce the pension on the ground of grave misconduct. In that case, unless a finding of guilty of misconduct has been given in a departmental or judicial proceedings in the manner as provided under Rule 43(b), no order of withholding of pension can be passed. In that case, unless a finding of guilty of misconduct has been given in a departmental or judicial proceedings in the manner as provided under Rule 43(b), no order of withholding of pension can be passed. In this case, as the pension has been ordered to be reduced on the ground of unsatisfactory service, provision of Rule 43(b) is not attracted and as such even assuming that no proceeding was pending before retirement, the question whether the event took place four years before initiation of the departmental proceeding for withholding of pension is not relevant. The facts stated above clearly show that while the petitioner was in service, certain allegations were made against him and the department proceeded under Rule-55-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Rule 55-A of the said Rules contains the procedure, whereunder a minor punishment has to be awarded and the matter has to be decided after giving an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner, submitted his explanation with regard to the show-cause notice issued to him, as contained in Annexures 1 and 3. In the meantime, he superannuated. In one case, with regard to the tender matter, the petitioner was found guilty and, thereafter he was awarded, minor punishment. The authorities, thereafter, issued a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner in terms of Rule 139 (a) & (b) of the Rules and after considering the same, an order has been passed for withholding the pension. 22. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that no reason has been assigned as to why the petitioner's service has been found to be unsatisfactory. No doubt, it is an administrative order, but even the administrative order should contain reasons unless giving of reasons has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication. It is well - settled by now that recording of reasons is regarded as one of the principle of natural justice, which governs the exercise of power by the administrative authority. Recording of reasons excludes chances of arbitrariness and assures a degree of fairness in the decision making process. It is well - settled by now that recording of reasons is regarded as one of the principle of natural justice, which governs the exercise of power by the administrative authority. Recording of reasons excludes chances of arbitrariness and assures a degree of fairness in the decision making process. The impugned order visits the petitioner with civil consequences in the sense that he has been deprived of his 10 per cent pension and absence of any reason as to why his service has not been found thoroughly satisfactory, in my view, vitiates the order and or this ground, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 11, is quashed and the matter is remitted to the State Government to consider the question afresh and dispose of the matter in the light of the observations made above. 23. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 11, is quashed.