ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30th December, 1994 passed by the Under Secretary, Government of Bihar, Welfare Department, whereby, a punishment for reduction in rank was passed against the petitioner, i.e., from the post of District Welfare Officer to the post of Sub-divisional Welfare Officer. The impugned order of punishment for reduction in rank was purported to have been passed with retrospective effect from 1.1.1988. 3. Apart from any other question this Court is of the view that the order for reduction in rank cannot be passed with retrospective effect. Learned counsel for the respondent has also fairly submitted that the order cannot be given retrospective effect, but the order can be given prospective effect. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was to retire from the service on 31st December, 1994, i.e. on the next date after the impugned order was passed and the petitioner was allowed to retire from the service. In para-40 of the writ petition the petitioner has categorically stated that till her retirement from the service the impugned order for reduction in rank was not served on her. The said fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed. In para-12 it has been merely stated that the notification for the said reduction in rank was issued on 31st December, 1994. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has stated with reference to the records that an attempt was made to serve the said order of reduction in rank on the petitioner on 21st November, 1995, but the petitioner refused to accept the same. 5. It is, therefore, clear that an attempt to serve the order of penalty was made one year after passing the same. In the meantime, the petitioner retired. Once the petitioner retired, the order cannot be enforced or implemented. It is rather well settled that if there is a suspension order in that case such order takes effect immediately, but in case of an order of penalty like reduction in rank, dismissal or removal, the same does not take effect unless it has been served on the person concerned. Passing an order and thereafter keeping the same in file does not mean that the same is served upon the person concerned. Passing an order and thereafter keeping the same in file does not mean that the same is served upon the person concerned. The authorities passing the said order must show something on the records that the order has gone out for service and has been dispatched for such service. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner was available in the office and the order dated-30th December, 1994 could have been served immediately, but for the reasons best known to them the same has not been done by the respondent. Therefore, the order which was passed one day before retirement of the petitioner for reduction in rank, and an attempt was made to serve the same on the petitioner almost after one year i.e., in November, 1995. As such the order is of no consequence and cannot be given effect to. 7. In the fact of this case it is clear that the order of reduction in rank passed against the petitioner cannot be given effect to. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are serious charges against the petitioners. This may be true, but the manner in which the enquiry was held and the manner in which the impugned order was passed one day before the petitioner's retirement, and thereafter no attempt was made to serve the same, it appears to this Court that the respondents are acting in collusion with the petitioner. Thus it is clear example in which a person is allowed to get the benefit of such laxity on the part of administration even though there may be charges against her. However, having regard to the legal position this Court cannot but hold that the impugned order of reduction in rank cannot be enforced against the petitioner. The said order is therefore quashed. 8. In that view of the matter, the retirement benefit of the petitioner will be paid on the basis that there is no such order of reduction in rank against her. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the retirement benefit of the petitioner has not been paid. To that respondent's counsel submits that the necessary documents relating to the pension papers have not been filed by the petitioner. 9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the retirement benefit of the petitioner has not been paid. To that respondent's counsel submits that the necessary documents relating to the pension papers have not been filed by the petitioner. 9. Considering the aforesaid contentions, this court directs the petitioner to file all the pension papers and all other papers relating to retirement benefit before the appropriate authority within a period of one month from today. If such papers are filed by the petitioner, if not already filed, the appropriate authority will pass order for payment of retirement benefit to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of filing of the said papers. 10. With the above direction this writ petition is allowed.