Judgment 1. The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the Government resolution dated 15.5.1997 contained in Annexure 4, whereby and whereunder certain punishments have been imposed upon him and an order for recovery from his pensionary benefits has also been passed. 2. The petitioner superannuated from the service on 30th April, 1997 while posted as Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Patna and only after his retirement the aforementioned order of punishment was passed. 3. Learned counsel for the State has tried to defend the said order by contending that the petitioner was asked to submit his show cause much before his retirement on 29.10.1992 and pursuant to which the petitioner filed his show cause on 15.7.1995. The respondent authority after considering his show cause has passed the impugned order. 4. It is not disputed that there was no departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner either while he was in service or even after his retirement in terms of proviso to rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension rules. Under such circumstances, this Court fails to appreciate as to how the impugned order can be sustained. Once the petitioner was allowed to superannuate on 30th April, 1997, the relationship of master and servant terminated and thereafter no order of such punishment could be legally passed by the authority except after proceeding in terms of proviso to rule 43(b) or under rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. This aspect has been considered in detail in the case of Sachchidanand Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and others (C.W.J.C. No. 7550 of 1998, disposed of on 14.9.1999) in which this Court has held that such action is not permissible in law. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, contained in Annexure 4, is quashed. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna (respondent no. 2) is directed to issue necessary sanction order for payment of remaining 10% of pension, full gratuity and salary for the unutilised leave within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that the petitioner will be entitled for interest as per the Government rule/decision on delayed payment of the said dues, for which also necessary sanctioned order must be issued within the aforesaid time. It is needless to say that the petitioner will be entitled for interest as per the Government rule/decision on delayed payment of the said dues, for which also necessary sanctioned order must be issued within the aforesaid time. In regard to the claim of T.A., the petitioner will be at liberty to agitate his grievance before the authority concerned and/or before the appropriate forum.