JUDGMENT Nagendra Rai, J. - This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, an ex-employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) for quashing the order dated 20.3.96 passed by the Board reducing the post retirement benefits of the petitioner to the extent of 50% of the amount payable by way of punishment towards partially compensating the loss caused to it. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. 2. The facts leading to the present writ application are that the petitioner was posted as Deputy Director of Accounts in Koshi Area Electricity Board at the relevant time. There was charge of irregular payment against the purchase of materials at Saharsa in the year, 1981-82 against him. The Board lodged a criminal case being Saharsa P. S. Case no. 4 of 1985 under sections 120 (B), 201, 204, 409, 468, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the Chief Engineer of the Koshi Area Electricity Board, the petitioner and others and the said case is still pending. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and other officers of the Board. The memo of charge dated 25.10.85 was served upon the petitioner, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. The charge, in brief, against the petitioner is that he having informed the Financial Controller of the Board earlier regarding irregular purchases of different kinds of materials by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of the Kosi Area Electricity Board later on connived with him and others and sent requisitions for funds from the Apex Board for payment to suppliers for the said irregular purchases. He made requisition for a total sum of Rs. 286.29 lacs. While the said departmental proceeding was pending the petitioner superannuated on 30th October, 92 and a provisional pension of 90% was sanctioned vide the Board order dated 29.10.92. The departmental enquiry was conducted by the Director of the departmental proceeding and he submitted a report on 25.5.88 holding that no charge has been substantiated against the petitioner. A copy of the said enquiry report has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. A copy of the said enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 3.11.89. 3. A copy of the said enquiry report has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. A copy of the said enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 3.11.89. 3. The petitioner tiled a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 3712/93 in this Court for a direction for payment of his full pension, dearness allowance, gratuity and other post retirement benefits. The said writ application was disposed of on 27.1.94, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ application. This Court having taken note of the fact that a departmental proceeding as well as a criminal case is pending did not direct for payment of full pension but ordered for payment of gratuity as no provision was brought to the notice of the Court that the same could be withheld during the pendency of the departmental proceeding and the criminal case. With regard to dearness allowance and other dues a direction was issued to file a representation with a direction to the Board to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Again the petitioner filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 4945/94 making a grievance that full retiral benefits have not been paid. This Court held that so far pendency of the criminal case is concerned that will not affect the right of the petitioner to claim his post retirement benefits, but the pendency of a departmental proceeding which was initiated before the retirement of the petitioner is the only point which requires consideration under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, disciplinary proceeding initiated against an officer before his retirement can be continued and dependent upon the findings in that proceeding, a decision may be taken under that rule. This Court having noticed that the enquiry report has already been submitted directed the respondent-Board to conclude the departmental proceeding and pass a final order within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of the said order. This Court further held that if the petitioner is exonerated in the departmental proceeding the respondent shall pay to him the balance post retirement dues within a period of three weeks thereafter. However, if the departmental proceeding results in a finding against the petitioner, the respondents may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. This Court further held that if the petitioner is exonerated in the departmental proceeding the respondent shall pay to him the balance post retirement dues within a period of three weeks thereafter. However, if the departmental proceeding results in a finding against the petitioner, the respondents may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure- 9 to the writ application. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed withholding of 50% of pension which has been challenged by the petitioner in this case. 4. The petitioner has challenged the order on the following grounds; (1) The Board has not adopted the Bihar Pension Rules under section 79 (1) (c) of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and as such the order itself is without jurisdiction, especially when the Board has framed its own service regulation being Bihar State Electricity Board Service Regulation, 1976. Paragraphs 75, 76 & 77 of the aforesaid regulation do not contain a provision for reduction of pension in case of finding of guilt of grave misconduct or causing pecuniary loss to the Board by misconduct or negligence during the service. (2) Even if it is accepted that the Bihar Pension Rules is applicable the disciplinary proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner while he was in service came to an end on superannuation/retirement and the said proceeding cannot be continued and order cannot be passed under section 43 (b) of the Pension Rules. It is further submitted that even if the order can be passed under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules it can be passed with regard to an event which took place not more than four years before the initiation of the proceeding and as in this Court the proceeding' is with regard to an event of the year, 1982-83, the proceeding under the aforesaid rule is not maintainable and accordingly the final order is vitiated in law. (3) The enquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner and the disciplinary authority after having differed with the same has passed the impugned order. (3) The enquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner and the disciplinary authority after having differed with the same has passed the impugned order. The disciplinary authority should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner before passing the order by communicating the reasons for differing with the findings of the enquiry officer and nonobservance of the said procedure has denied the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in a departmental proceeding and thus, there is violation of principle of natural justice. (4) The similar order passed withholding the pension in the case of Subrat Chakravorty, who was Electrical Superintending Engineer, and against whom the departmental proceeding was initiated with regard to the same matter has been quashed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2473/94 and as such the petitioner should also receive the same treatment. It is also submitted that another Superintending Engineer. namely, Kalika Pd. Singh came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2653/94 against whom the proceeding was also pending with regard to the same matter and this Court ordered for payment of the entire pension after coming to the conclusion that the proceeding under section 43 (b) cannot continue as it relates to an event of more than four years old and as such the final order passed against the petitioner withholding of pension should be quashed. 5. The stand of the Board as appears from the counter affidavit is that there were various charges against the petitioner and a departmental proceeding was initiated in which he was given full opportunity and thereafter the enquiry officer submitted the report exonerating him of all the charges. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and has passed the impugned order by assigning reasons for differing with the enquiry report. The further stand of the Board is that the Board by its resolution dated 6.9.66 resolved to adopt the Bihar Pension Rules which has been reiterated by its memo dated 2.12.87, copies of the said resolution and memo have been annexed as Annexures-E & F to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 7.4.98. The further stand of the Board is that the Board by its resolution dated 6.9.66 resolved to adopt the Bihar Pension Rules which has been reiterated by its memo dated 2.12.87, copies of the said resolution and memo have been annexed as Annexures-E & F to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 7.4.98. As the Bihar Pension Rules is applicable in the case of the employees of the Board and the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner while he was in service the said proceeding can be continued even after his retirement for the purpose of withholding of pension on proof of misconduct etc., and the same is permissible in view of the specific provision of section 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. It is further stated on behalf of the Board that the petitioner was given full opportunity to participate in the departmental proceeding and to lead evidence and a copy of the enquiry report was also supplied to him. In that view of the matter, there is no requirement in law that before passing a final order by the disciplinary authority differing with the report of the enquiry officer reasons for differing should also be communicated and explanation should besought for from the petitioner. It is also stated on behalf of the Board that the cases of Mr. S. Chakravorty, an Electrical Superintending Engineer, and Kalika Pd. Singh, also an Electrical Superintending Engineer, are quite different than the case of the petitioner and as such the order passed against the petitioner cannot be quashed on the basis of the orders passed in those cases. 6. The first question for determination is as to whether the Bihar Pension Rules have been adopted by the Board in cases of their employees or not. 7. The Bihar Pension Rules apply only in case of the employees who are in service under the Government of Bihar and unless it is found that to the Board has adopted the pension rules the provision of the same cannot be held to be applicable in case of the employees of the Board including the petitioner. 8. The Board in exercise of the power under section 7(1) (c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 framed a regulation, 1976 known as Bihar State Electricity Board Service Regulations which came into force on 1st September, 1976. 8. The Board in exercise of the power under section 7(1) (c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 framed a regulation, 1976 known as Bihar State Electricity Board Service Regulations which came into force on 1st September, 1976. Chapter-VIII of the said regulation contains a provision of termination of service and terminal benefits. There is no provision therein that the pension of the employee can be withheld on proof of misconduct or negligence etc. 9. It is not in dispute that the Board by its resolution taken from time to time has adopted the rules of the State Government in different fields. 10. From perusal of the counter affidavit of the Board it appears that the Board vide its resolution dated 6.9.66 decided to provide the pension to its employees as applicable In the case of the Bihar Government employees and adopted the pension rules and other circulars issued from time to time. The copy of the said resolution is dated 6.9.66. Subsequently, on 2.12.87 the Board adopted the another resolution of the State Government with regard to the grant of pension etc., a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-F to the supplementary counter affidavit. From perusal of the same it appears that it is clearly mentioned therein that the Board vide its resolution dated 6.9.66 has adopted the Bihar Pension Rules for admissibility of pension to its employees borne on pensionable establishment. Thus, the aforesaid annexure filed by the Board clearly shows that the pension rule has been adopted by the Board and the said decision of the Board still holds good inspite of the provision of the regulations, 1976. Para-112 of the said regulation contains saving and interpretation provision and Clause (iv) of the aforesaid paragraph provides that if there is any conflict between these regulations and any other Rules or Regulations framed by the Board or any Standing Orders of the Board, Area Boards or Generation-cum-Transmission Organisation, Provisions of these Regulations shall prevail. There is no conflict between the provisions of the Regulations and the Bihar Pension Rules as no provision has been made for withholding of pension after retirement under the regulations and as such the earlier resolution of the Board adopting pension rule is still in force. There is no conflict between the provisions of the Regulations and the Bihar Pension Rules as no provision has been made for withholding of pension after retirement under the regulations and as such the earlier resolution of the Board adopting pension rule is still in force. Thus, I hold that the Bihar Pension Rules are applicable in the case of the employees of the Board except those who are specifically exempted by the orders passed by the Board from time to time. 11. The second point for consideration is whether the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner while he was in service came to an end after his superannuation and no order can be passed under section 43 (b) of the Pension Rules on the basis of the departmental proceeding initiated earlier. The connected question for determination is as to whether the proceeding culminating in passing the impugned order is vitiated in terms of proviso (ii) of Rule 43 (b) of the Rules. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has relied upon the following decisions of the Privy Council and the Apex Court; "1937 Privy Council 27 R.T. Rangachari vs. Secretary of State, 1978 S. C. 1109 B. J. Shelat vs. State of Gujarat and others, 1990, S. C. 463 C. L. Verma vs. State of M. P. and another and 1995 S.C. 1853 : 1995 (2) PLJR (SC) 51 State of Bihar & Others Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari." He has also relied upon the following judgments rendered by the learned single Judges of this Court; " 1989 PLJR 443 Sheopujan Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Others, 1991 Vol. 2 PLJR 204 Bindhya Nath Jha and another Vs. The Patna Regional Development Authority and others, 1995 Vol. 2 PLJR 609 Bali Ram Thakur Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and another, 1996 Vol. 1 PLJR 516 Ram Lakhan Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Others, and 1997 Vol. 2 PLJR 933 Md. Wakil Vs. The State of Bihar & others." 13. Learned counsel appearing for the Board on the other hand relied upon the following judgments to combat the submissions advanced on behalf of the Counsel for the petitioner; "1987 S.C. 943 State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shri Brahm Datt Sharma and another, 1990 (4) S.C.C. 314 D. V. Kapoor Vs. Union of India and others, 1995 Suppl. Learned counsel appearing for the Board on the other hand relied upon the following judgments to combat the submissions advanced on behalf of the Counsel for the petitioner; "1987 S.C. 943 State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shri Brahm Datt Sharma and another, 1990 (4) S.C.C. 314 D. V. Kapoor Vs. Union of India and others, 1995 Suppl. Vol (1) S.C.C. 321 High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Amrik Singh, 1996 Vol. 9 S.C.C. 395 State of U.P. and another Vs. Shri Krishna Pandey, 1968 PLJR 634 Jagdhari Roy Vs. State of Bihar and others and 1986 PLJR 403 Deena Nath Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and others. 14. Before adverting to the cases relied upon by the Counsel for the parties it would be proper to quote Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, which has important bearing in deciding the question involved. The said provision runs as follows : (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 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; (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. 15. 15. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision shows that the State Government (in the present case the Board) reserves the right of witholding the whole or part of the pension as well as the right of ordering the recovery of pension of the whole or any part of the pecuniary loss caused to the 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 negligance, during his service including service rendered on re-employment. The proviso provides that if the departmental proceeding has not been instituted while the Government servant was in service then the same cannot be instituted except with the sanction of the State Government and in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. There are certain other requirements of the said provision but the same are not relevant for the purpose of this case. Thus, if the departmental proceeding has already been initiated while the government servant was in service the came can be continued and on proof of misconduct etc. as mentioned under the aforesaid rule the pension can be withheld. However, if the government servant has superannuated and the State Government/Disciplinary Authority intends to initiate a departmental proceeding for the purposes of withholding of pension then it has to initiate subject to fulfilment of the conditions, as mentioned in the proviso including initiation of the proceeding only with regard to an event which has taken place four years before institution of such proceedings. 16. Rule 43 (b) requires only recording of findings as to whether the delinquent has committed grave misconduct etc. during his service with a view to enable the competent authority to withhold the pension in terms of the rule. The order for withholding of pension is consequential to the findings of guilt of misconduct etc., as mentioned in the rule, during the period of service. However, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that such interpretation cannot be given to the aforesaid provision in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court as well as the judgments rendered by the learned single judges of this Court. 17. However, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that such interpretation cannot be given to the aforesaid provision in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court as well as the judgments rendered by the learned single judges of this Court. 17. To appreciate the point firstly I will refer the cases of the Privy Council and the Apex Court relied upon by the Counsel of both the parties. In the case of R. T. Rangachari (supra) the question for consideration before the Privy Council was as to whether an employee after conclusion of the departmental proceeding has been allowed to retire with invalid pension be visited with an order of dismissal after his retirement. Dealing with the said matter it was held by the Privy Council that an order purporting to remove the appellant from service at a time when he had for some months duly and properly ceased to be in the service, was a mere nullity and cannot be sustained. This case does not in my view, help the petitioner for the reason that the question involved in this present case was not the subject matter of decision. In the case of B. J. Shelat (supra) the appellant before the Supreme Court was the Judicial Magistrate in the State of Gujrat. He had conducted the case under the Food Adulteration Act and certain allegations were made by some persons that money was paid to him. The appellant gave a notice under rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules of his intention to retire on reaching the age of fifty five years on 3rd December, 1973. But before the date the appellant was due to retire he was asked to submit an explanation with regard to the allegations made in the affidavit. The appellant submitted his explanation on 26th November, 1973. On 11th December, 1973 an order of suspension was passed and thereafter he was dismissed from the service on 21st January, 1976. The question was whether a disciplinary action could be taken after his retirement. Rule 161 contained provision for the retirement of the government servant before attaining the age of superannuation. On 11th December, 1973 an order of suspension was passed and thereafter he was dismissed from the service on 21st January, 1976. The question was whether a disciplinary action could be taken after his retirement. Rule 161 contained provision for the retirement of the government servant before attaining the age of superannuation. Rule 161 (2) (ii) gave a right to an employee to retire after giving three months notice on his attaining prescribed age, however, that right was subject to the proviso which empowered the appointing authority to withhold permission to retire a government servant. Dealing with the said matter the Apex Court held that as no specific order having been passed by the appointing authority withholding permission and the petitioner has retired before the initiation of the departmental proceeding, no disciplinary proceeding can be taken after the retirement. This case is not relevant for the purpose of this case as in this case the question is as to whether after superannuation a proceeding can be continued or not under the provision of the Pension Rules for the purpose of withholding of pension. In C. L. Verma case (supra) the order of dismissal which was, admittedly, issued after attaining the age of 58 years was sought to be justified on the ground that according to the executive instructions the date of superannuation was extended to the last date of month and before that the order of dismissal was passed. The Apex Court negatived the said stand of the State on the ground that the provision of the rule which provides superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years cannot be ignored on the basis of a notification and the rule will prevail over the notification and the employee shall be deemed to have retired on the date of attaining the age of 58 years which was admittedly prior to the issuance of dismissal order. I fail to understand as to how this case has any relevancy to the question involved in this case. In the case of Md. I fail to understand as to how this case has any relevancy to the question involved in this case. In the case of Md. Idris Ansari (supra) the proceeding for withholding of pension under rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was initiated with regard to the misconduct and negligence after the retirement of the Government servant and in that context it was held by the Apex Court that such proceeding should be initiated with regard to the misconduct which had taken place within four years of the initiation of the departmental proceeding. As in that case admittedly proceeding was initiated with regard to an event which was more than four years before the initiation of the proceeding, the same was quashed on the ground that it was barred by Rule 43 (b) proviso (a) (ii). That case is not an authority that a departmental proceeding which was pending before retirement cannot be continued for the purpose of withholding of pension in terms of rule 43 (b) of the Rules. 18. In the case of State of Utter Pradesh (supra), respondent Brahm Datt Sharma was the Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He was dismissed from the service and he challenged his dismissal order in the High Court of Allahabad. The order of dismissal was set aside on 10.8.84 on the ground that the same was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. While the matter was pending in the High Court, said Brahm Datt Sharma had retired and the High Court after setting aside the order of dismissal observed that it will be open for the respondent to draw a fresh proceeding if it is permissible to do so and thereafter a notice was issued by the State Government under Article 470 (b) of the Civil Services Regulations calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why his pension and gratuity be not forfeited. The said order was again challenged in the High Court and the High Court quashed the same on the ground that as the earlier departmental proceeding has been quashed it was not open to the State Government to issue show cause notice under Article 470 (b). It is to be stated that the rule 351 (A) of the aforesaid rule is pari materia to Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. It is to be stated that the rule 351 (A) of the aforesaid rule is pari materia to Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. After considering the said rule and other relevant rules the Apex Court had held that if the disciplinary proceeding against an employee of the Government is initiated in respect of misconduct committed by him and if he retires from the service on attaining the age of superannuation before completion of the proceedings it is open to the State government to direst reduction in his pension on the proof of the allegations made against him. If the charges are not established during the disciplinary proceeding or if the disciplinary proceeding is quashed it is not permissible to the State to direct reduction in pension on the same allegation, but if the charges of serious allegation are established, which may have a bearing on the question of rendering efficient and satisfactory service, it would be open to the Government to take proceedings against the Government servant in accordance with rules for the reduction of pension and gratuity. It was further held that in case 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 statutory 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 Govt. 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 Govt. 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........Merely, because a Government servant retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation he cannot escape the liability of misconduct or negligence or financial irregularities. 19. 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........Merely, because a Government servant retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation he cannot escape the liability of misconduct or negligence or financial irregularities. 19. In the case of D. V. Kapoor (supra) rule 9 (2) of Civil Services Conduct Rules was under consideration which provided that the departmental proceeding if instituted while the government servant was in service shall, after the final retirement of the government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the government servant had continued in service. The appellant in that case while the departmental proceeding was pending took voluntary retirement from the service and was allowed to retire but he was put on notice that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him would be continued under rule 9 of the Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972. The contentions raised in that case was that the appellant having been allowed to retire voluntarily the authorities are devoid of jurisdiction to impose the penalty of withholding gratuity and pension as a measure of punishment and the proceedings stand abated. The Apex Court negatived the aforesaid provision and held as follows; "We find no substance in the contention. Rule 9 (2) of the Rules provided that the departmental proceedings if instituted while government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall, after the final retirement of the government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the government servant had continued in service. Therefore, merely because the appellant was allowed to retire, the government is not lacking jurisdiction or power to continue the proceedings already initiated to the logical conclusion thereto. The disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Conduct Rules must be deemed to be proceedings under the rules and shall be continued and concluded by the authorities by which the proceedings have been commenced in the same manner as if the government servant had continued in service. The disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Conduct Rules must be deemed to be proceedings under the rules and shall be continued and concluded by the authorities by which the proceedings have been commenced in the same manner as if the government servant had continued in service. The only inhibition thereafter is as provided in the proviso namely "provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President". That has been done in this case and the President passed the impugned order. Accordingly, we hold that the proceedings are valid in law and they are not abated consequent to voluntary retirement of the appellant and the order was passed by the competent authority i.e. the President of India." 20. The aforesaid rule was again the subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana (supra). In this case respondent Amrik Singh was an employee of the High Court superannuated on 20th of August, 1980. After retirement he was given re-employment up to 31.8.82. On the basis of certain charges he was suspended on 17.12.81 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding he was dismissed in the year, 1983. He challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court of Punjab which quashed the order of dismissal on the ground that the said order was passed after superannuation of the employee. However, the Court directed to take an appropriate action under rule 9 of the Pension Rules. The said order was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court held that even after retirement the proceeding for withholding of pension under the relevant pension rules can be continued and in case of recording the finding that the delinquent has committed grave misconduct of the proved charge a suitable order can be passed. It is apt to quote paragraph-3 of the said judgement which runs as follows; "The respective contentions give rise to the question whether the orders of dismissal is valid in law or what would be the appropriate orders that could be passed in the circumstances of the case. It is apt to quote paragraph-3 of the said judgement which runs as follows; "The respective contentions give rise to the question whether the orders of dismissal is valid in law or what would be the appropriate orders that could be passed in the circumstances of the case. In D. V. Kapoor vs. Union of India considering Rule 9 of the Central Pension Rules, this Court held that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent must be deemed to be proceedings under the Pension Rules and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which the proceedings have been commenced in the same manner as if the government servant had been continued in service. In that case, since the prior approval of the President was required to be obtained, it was held that the requirement has been complied with. Accordingly, it was held that the proceedings validly initiated against the delinquent officer should be continued till the appropriate orders are passed by the competent authority, though the delinquent had retired during the pendency of the enquiry and the proceedings were not abated, consequent on the retirement. The same ratio would apply to the facts of this case. Several options are open to the appointing authority and in case the disciplinary authority also happens to be the appointing authority. Before the delinquent reaches supperannuation, the enquiry should be got expedited and appropriate order passed on the basis of the findings reached by the disciplinary authority. In case the delinquent attempts to drag the proceedings or he does not cooperate in the completion of the enquiry, after giving necessary warning in writing, suitable course appropriate to the facts is required to be adopted. In case it is not possible to complete the enquiry or to pass the final order, the suspension should be extended and re-employment ordered or the latter extended and to pass appropriate orders during extended period. In case it is found that either of those courses, is neither feasible nor possible and allowed the delinquent to retire from service, it would be open to the disciplinary authority to record in its order that "but for the retirement he would have passed on order of dismissal or removal from service". In case it is found that either of those courses, is neither feasible nor possible and allowed the delinquent to retire from service, it would be open to the disciplinary authority to record in its order that "but for the retirement he would have passed on order of dismissal or removal from service". Since the delinquent had retired the disciplinary authority would record in the order that the delinquent "committed grave misconduct of the proved charge" and suitable order be made." 21. Regulation 351-A of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services Regulations, which as stated above, is in pari materia with rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rule was the subject matter of consideration in the case of State of U.P. and another vs. Shri Krishna Pandey (supra). There the departmental proceeding was admittedly initiated after retirement of the government employee. The pension was not paid to him and he challenged the order before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which allowed the writ application and directed for the payment of pension. The said order was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court after referring to the provision of 351-A of Civil Services Regulations held that for the purpose of withholding of pension the departmental proceedings are required to be initiated against the delinquent either before the retirement or after the retirement but in case of initiation after retirement the proceeding should be initiated with regard to an event which has not taken place more than four years before the institution of the proceeding. In that case the proceeding was initiated after retirement with regard to an event which has taken place more than four years before the initiation of the proceeding. The order of the High Court was upheld. The relevant proposition of law laid down in the said case in paragraph-6 of the judgment runs as follows; "It would thus be seen that proceeding are required to be instituted against a delinquent officer before retirement. There is no specific provision allowing the officer to continue in service nor any order passed to allow him to continue on re-employment till the enquiry is completed, without allowing him to retire from service. Equally, there is no provision that the proceedings be initiated as a disciplinary measure and the action initiated earlier would remain unabated after retirement. There is no specific provision allowing the officer to continue in service nor any order passed to allow him to continue on re-employment till the enquiry is completed, without allowing him to retire from service. Equally, there is no provision that the proceedings be initiated as a disciplinary measure and the action initiated earlier would remain unabated after retirement. If regulation 351-A to be operative in respect of pending proceedings, by necessary implication, prior sanction of the Governor to continue the proceedings against him is required. On the other hand, the regulation also would indicate that if the officer caused pecuniary loss or committed embezzlement etc., due to misconduct or negligence or dereliction of duty, then proceedings should also be instituted after retirement against the officer as expeditiously as possible. But the events of misconduct etc. which may have resulted in the loss to the Government or embezzlement, i.e. the cause for institution of proceedings, should not have taken place more than four years before the date of institution of proceedings. In other words, the departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct etc., had taken place. Admittedly, in this case the officer had retired on 31.3.87 and the proceedings were initiated on 21.4.91. Obviously, the event of embezzlement which caused pecuniary loss to the State took place prior to four years from the date of his retirement. Under these circumstances the State had disabled itself by their deliberate omissions to take appropriate action against the respondent and allowed the officer to escape from the provisions of Regulation 351-A of the Regulations." 22. Thus, it is well settled by the Apex Court that if a departmental proceeding against an employee with regard to his misconduct etc. has been initiated while in service then the same does not come to an end as a result of superannuation and the proceeding can be continued and on proof of misconduct etc. an order for withholding of pension can be passed, if rules so provide. It is also equally well settled that even after retirement a proceeding can be initiated with regard to the misconduct, negligence etc. in discharge of duty while the government servant was in service and pension can be withheld provided the other conditions mentioned in the rules are fulfilled. It is also equally well settled that even after retirement a proceeding can be initiated with regard to the misconduct, negligence etc. in discharge of duty while the government servant was in service and pension can be withheld provided the other conditions mentioned in the rules are fulfilled. Rule 351-A of the U. P. Civil Services Regulations is in pari materia with rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. While interpreting the said provision the Apex Court in the Case of Sri Brahm Datt Sharma and Sri Krishna Pandey (supra) had held that the departmental proceeding pending against a government servant with regard to the alleged misconduct while in service can be continued and order can be passed on proof of misconduct etc. for withholding of pension. The same view has been reiterated in the Amrik Singh case (supra). 23. Rule 43 (b) has been subject matter of consideration in a number of cases by this Court by the Division Benches as well as by the learned single judges. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the learned single judges which will be referred at an appropriate place. I would like to mention that unfortunately the Division Bench judgments rendered with regard to the scope of rule 43 (b) were not brought to the notice of the learned single judges, which, in my view, have clearly decided that a departmental proceeding initiated prior to retirement can be continued and on proof of misconduct, negligence etc. the order can be passed under rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The departmental proceeding does not come to an end as a result of retirement of an employee and on the other hand that will be continued and on proof of misconduct etc. an order for withholding of pension can be passed. In this connection firstly, I will refer to the case of Jagdhari Roy (supra). In that case the petitioner, an employee in the Bihar Agriculture service, challenged the entry of severe censure in his confidential character roll which was recorded in pursuance of an order passed in a departmental proceeding. It appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was placed under suspension. In that case the petitioner, an employee in the Bihar Agriculture service, challenged the entry of severe censure in his confidential character roll which was recorded in pursuance of an order passed in a departmental proceeding. It appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was placed under suspension. Later on the order of suspension was withdrawn and he was allowed to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years which was the date normally for superannuation but the departmental proceeding was allowed to continue and in 1966 the proceeding was closed and an order was passed for recording an entry of severe censure in his confidential character roll. It was submitted on his behalf that there is no power in the government to pass an order of punishment against a government servant after he has retired from the service. It is to mentioned here that rule 73 (F) of the Bihar Service Code vested a power in the State Government to withhold permission to an employee to retire on attaining the age of superannuation and to retain him in service until the enquiry into the charge is concluded and a final order is passed thereon. However, the provision was not resorted to in that case. The question for determination was as to whether power was vested in the State Government to pass an order of punishment after superannuation of the Government employee. Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was considered and it was held that this rule authorises the continuance of a departmental proceeding initiated prior to the date of superannuation and the passing of an order of punishment for the recovery from the pension of the whole or any part of a pencuniary loss caused to the Government during service for that purpose with the special sanction of the State Government even after the officer has retired. 24. 24. Again in the case of Deena Nath Prasad (supra) a Division Bench of this Court has considered the scope of 43 (b) & 139 of the Pension Rules and held that a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provision manifests that the judicial proceeding or the departmental proceeding ought to be started during the tenure of the service of the Government servant but such a proceeding can also be taken with respect to neligence or fraud causing losses to the government only with the sanction of the State Government and that too with respect to an event which must not take place beyond one year of the date on which the government servant was last on duty. Thus, it has been held by the Division Benches of this Court that a departmental proceeding initiated against the delinquent employee while in service can be continued even after retirement for the purpose of withholding of pension etc. in terms of Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules. If the same has not been initiated prior to superannuation it can be initiated after superannuation subject to the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in the proviso. 25. At this stage, I would like to refer the judgments of the learned single judges which have been relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Shoepujan Singh (supra) it was found that no departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding was pending at the time of superannuation of the employee and it was further found that no proceeding in terms of the proviso can be initiated as the event was more than four years before the institution of the proceeding and in that situation an order was passed for payment of retiral benefits. As such that case is not an authority that a departmental proceeding initiated prior to retirement comes to an end after the retirement. In the case of Bindhya Nath Jha (supra) the question for consideration was as to whether a departmental proceeding can be continued after the retirement of the employee. The learned single judge relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Privy Council and other cases came to the conclusion that the departmental proceeding came to an end after retirement of the government servant. The learned single judge relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Privy Council and other cases came to the conclusion that the departmental proceeding came to an end after retirement of the government servant. In my view, the question as to whether the proceeding can be continued in terms of the Pension rules or not was not the subject matter of decision nor the said provision was considered in that case and as such the said case is of no help to the petitioner. In the case of Bali Ram Thakur (supra) it is found that while a criminal case was pending the employee of the Electricity Board retired and no proceeding under rule 43 (b) was initiated and accordingly this Court ordered for payment of retiral benefits. From perusal of paragraph-2 of the said judgment it appears that the learned single judge while disposing of the matter has held that under rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules pension can be withheld on the basis of proceeding which has been either initiated or continued. Thus, the aforesaid cases is against the petitioner and does not support his stand. Ram Lakhan Singh case (supra) is also not an authority on the point and In that case the employee retired in 1991 and the proceeding under rule 139 (b) was initiated In 1993 with regard to an event which had taken place in 1981-82 & 82-83. It was held that as the action under rule 139 & 43 (b) was taken with regard to an event which has taken place beyond four years from the date of initiation of the proceeding, the order withholding pension was bad in law. The case of Md. Wakil (supra) supports the stand of the petitioner as in that case it has been held that if the department:,1 proceeding is not concluded by issuance of a final order, while the government servant is in service the same lapses on superannuation of the government servant concerned. Once a government servant superannuates from service, he goes beyond the disciplinary control of the government and thereafter only such proceeding may be initiated against the concerned government servant as expressly provided under the rule/laws. With great respect to the learned single judge, the view taken by him is contrary to the binding precedent of the Division Bench as well as the Apex Court. With great respect to the learned single judge, the view taken by him is contrary to the binding precedent of the Division Bench as well as the Apex Court. It appears that the aforesaid Division Benches Judgments which were binding were not brought to the notice of his lordship. The proviso of rule 43 (b) which has been quoted by his lordship in the judgment was not noticed which clearly provides that if a departmental proceeding is pending from before the same can be continued or a fresh can be initiated on the fulfilment of the conditions as mentioned in rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that as the learned single judges in the aforesaid cases have taken the aforesaid view with regard to rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules in case of disagreement this Court should refer the matter to the Division Bench. If the said matter (point) would have been decided only by the learned single Judges then in case of taking a different view In the matter I would have referred the matter to the Division Bench. But, as stated above, two Division Benches of this Court have earlier held that the departmental proceeding pending before superannuation of an employee can be continued for the purpose of withholding of Pension under rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and I find myself in full agreement with law laid down by the Division Benches which is binding, it is not necessary to refer this case to the Division Bench. This apart the binding precedents of the Apex Court, as noticed above, also supports the view taken by me and as such this is not a case which should be referred to a Division Bench as urged on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, after having considered the provision of rule 43 (b) and the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in cases referred to above. I am of the considered view that the State/Disciplinary Authority as the case may be has power to withhold the pension on proof of misconduct and negligence of a government servant while he was in service. If the departmental proceeding has been initiated while the government servant was in service the same can be continued and on proof of misconduct, negligence etc. If the departmental proceeding has been initiated while the government servant was in service the same can be continued and on proof of misconduct, negligence etc. in a departmental proceeding an order in terms of rule 43 (b) for withholding of pension etc. can be passed. After the retirement no punishment in the nature of dismissal/removal can be passed for the simple reasons that the government servant does not remain in service but the pension which is to be paid to an employee on rendering the satisfactory service the same can be withheld on proof of misconduct in a departmental proceeding which was initiated prior to retirement of the government servant but concluded after retirement. Even after retirement the proceeding for withholding of pension etc. can be initiated and order in terms of rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules can be passed. However, in that case the conditions as mentioned in the proviso has to be fulfilled. One of the conditions is that the departmental proceeding shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the initiation of the proceedings. The said requirement applies only in respect of proceeding initiated after retirement. 28. Regarding third point urged on behalf of the petitioner it is to be stated that it is a settled law that the public servant facing a departmental proceeding has to be provided with a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. He has to be informed of the charges which he has been called for to meet before the commencement of the enquiry and thereafter he has to be given an opportunity to offer his explanation and the enquiry has to be conducted according to the rules consistent with the requirement of natural justice. If the enquiry is conducted by an officer other than the disciplinary authority then the enquiry officer after considering the evidence will arrive at his conclusion and thereafter will submit his report to the disciplinary authority. He may also make recommendation with regard to the punishments though it is not necessary for him to make a recommendation with regard to the proposed punishments unless the rules specifically provide for that. The report of the enquiry officer is not binding on the disciplinary authority and he may differ with the same. He may also make recommendation with regard to the punishments though it is not necessary for him to make a recommendation with regard to the proposed punishments unless the rules specifically provide for that. The report of the enquiry officer is not binding on the disciplinary authority and he may differ with the same. In case the disciplinary authority finds that the charges have been proved and proposes a punishment then according to the provision which was incorporated in the relevant service rule a second show cause notice against the proposed punishment was required to be issued. However, after the 42nd amendment of the Constitution the same has been dispensed with. There is no provision in the case governing the employees of the Board requiring issuance of a second show cause notice against the proposed punishment. 29. However, the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc. vs. Karunakar etc., 1994 S. C. 1074 had held that it is no longer necessary to issue a notice to the delinquent employee to show cause against the punishment proposed. However, in a case whether the enquiry officer is not a disciplinary authority irrespective of the nature of punishment the employee of all the establishments whether Government or non-government public or private has right to receive a copy of the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrived at his conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence concerning the charges levelled against him. This right is a part of the employee to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. 30. Thus, the settled law is that in a disciplinary proceeding the delinquent employee is to be informed of the charges levelled against him. He should be afforded an opportunity to give his explanation and should also be provided reasonable opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses. He should be also provided with all the relevant documents which are to be relied upon against him. He should be also provided an opportunity to give evidence in support of his case. A copy of the enquiry report should also be supplied to him in a situation mentioned above. If these formalities are complied with then the principle of natural justice is satisfied. 31. He should be also provided an opportunity to give evidence in support of his case. A copy of the enquiry report should also be supplied to him in a situation mentioned above. If these formalities are complied with then the principle of natural justice is satisfied. 31. However, according to the counsel for the petitioner in case where an enquiry report has been submitted in favour of the delinquent in the sense that the charges have not been substantiated and the disciplinary authority wants to take a different view and holds that the charges have been proved and imposes a punishment the reasons for differing with the findings of the enquiry officer should also be communicated before passing the final order as non-communication of the reasons for differing with the findings of the enquiry officer before passing a final order and not giving an opportunity to represent against those reasons or findings is in violation of the principle of natural justice. In my view, this submission cannot be accepted. A delinquent employee is entitled to supply of all the materials which are taken into account by the disciplinary authority but there is no requirement that even the reasonings for differing with the enquiry report submitted in favour of the delinquent should also be communicated and petitioner should be afforded an opportunity before passing a final order of holding guilt and imposing punishment after differing with the report of the enquiry officer. The horizan of the natural justice cannot be expanded to the extent as urged on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner. 32. The point which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner has already been considered by the Apex Court and has been negatived in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. M. C. Saxena, JT 1988 (2) SC 103. In that case the enquiry officer has exonerated employees of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority having differed with conclusion of the enquiry officer imposed punishment. It was submitted that the disciplinary authority could not have imposed punishment without giving an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent and accordingly the order awarding the punishment was in violation of the principle of natural justice. The disciplinary authority having differed with conclusion of the enquiry officer imposed punishment. It was submitted that the disciplinary authority could not have imposed punishment without giving an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent and accordingly the order awarding the punishment was in violation of the principle of natural justice. Dealing with the said matter the Apex Court has held that it is well settled that the disciplinary authority can disagree with the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer and act upon his own conclusion but the only requirement is that the said disciplinary authority must record reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer. If the disciplinary authority gives reasons disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer then this Court cannot interfere with those findings unless it comes to the conclusion that no reasonable man can come to the said finding. In this view of the matter, the disciplinary authority was well within his powers to award punishment on the findings arrived at by him. We do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the delinquent government servant that before the disciplinary authority proceeds to award punishment, the delinquent government servant should have been afforded a further opportunity of hearing. 33. Thus, it has to be held that after the enquiry officer has submitted a report in favour of the delinquent and a copy of the same has been supplied to the petitioner, there is no further requirement that the disciplinary authority in case of disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer should communicate his reasons for disagreement and give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee with regard to those reasons before passing a final order in the departmental proceeding. The requirement is that in case of disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer which are in favour of the delinquent, the reasons have to be given in the final order: 34. In this case a reasonable opportunity of hearing was. afforded to the petitioner, the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and thereafter the disciplinary authority having considered all the materials has given reasons in the impugned order for taking a different view than taken by the enquiry officer and has found that the charges have been proved against the petitioner and ordered for withholding of the pension. afforded to the petitioner, the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and thereafter the disciplinary authority having considered all the materials has given reasons in the impugned order for taking a different view than taken by the enquiry officer and has found that the charges have been proved against the petitioner and ordered for withholding of the pension. The said order, In my view, is not vitiated on the ground urged on behalf of the petitioner. 35. There is no substance in the fourth point urged on behalf of the petitioner. The orders passed in the case of Subrata Chakraverty vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. and Kalika Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., as contained in Annexures-6 & 7 do not support the case of the petitioner. In the case of Subrata Chakraverty, after his retirement an order for withholding ,of pension and gratuity was passed under rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and the same was quashed by the learned single judge with a definite finding that the materials do not prove the allegation of misconduct or negligence on his part and as such the said case is not an authority that the post retirement benefits cannot be withheld after the retirement of the government servant on the basis of the departmental proceeding pending from before. In the case of Kalika Pd. Singh a departmental proceeding was initiated while he was in service in the year, 1985 and a criminal case was also pending against him. In the meantime, he superannuated in 1989. He filed a writ application in this Court that he has not been paid entire retiral benefits. Dealing with the said matter the learned single judge has held that as the petitioner has retired he has gone beyond the disciplinary control of the respondent Board. Under the Bihar Pension Rules, a power has been vested in the competent authority to withhold a part or the whole of the pension if a proceeding is initiated under rule 43 (b) alleging misconduct of the nature enumerated in that rule. Under the Bihar Pension Rules, a power has been vested in the competent authority to withhold a part or the whole of the pension if a proceeding is initiated under rule 43 (b) alleging misconduct of the nature enumerated in that rule. The rule, however, prescribes a limitation for the initiation of proceeding and consequently a proceeding can be initiated under that rule only if misconduct is alleged to have taken place within four years from the date of Initiation of the proceeding and as such the proceeding In the Instant case was barred by limitation. No doubt these observations support the case of the petitioner but with great respect to the learned single judge he has failed to notice the distinction between the proceeding pending from before and the proceeding which is to be initiated after superannuation of the government servant. The said observations made by the learned single judge is contrary to the earlier Division Bench judgments of this Court, as stated above, and the judgments of the Apex Court. Not only this the same learned single judge while dealing with the case of the petitioner when he came earlier, has held that the pendency of the departmental proceeding, which was initiated before the retirement of the petitioner is the only point which requires consideration under rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the officer before his retirement can be continued and dependent upon the finding in that proceeding, a decision may be taken under that rule. As such in the case of the petitioner it has already been held that the proceedings can continue even after retirement under rule 43 (b) which view is the correct view, as stated above and the aforesaid observation made in Annexure-8 is not a correct law on the subject. 36. Thus, none of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is worth acceptance. the Board, in my view, after having considered the entire materials against the petitioner and having assigned the reasons for taking a different view than the view taken by the enquiry officer has passed the impugned order which requires no interference by this Court. 37. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.