Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. It is not disputed before us That a departmental proceedings had been initiated against the appellant, while he was in service in the year, 1991. The appellant superannuated from service on 31.1.1993 while the departmental proceedings were continuing. 3. It was urged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant that once a Government servant superannuated from service, the departmental proceedings, it any pending against him, must lapse and no punishment can be inflicted upon him in such proceedings. Broadly speaking, the proposition enunciated by the Counsel for the appellant is unexceptional, but this is subject to the express provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules, particularly Rule 43 thereof which becomes significant while considering the claim to pensioner benefits of such a superannuated employee. No doubt, a retired Government servant cannot be punished, in the sense, that none of the punishments specified in the Service Rules can be inflicted upon him after his superannuation. However, the proceedings may be continued for the primrose of Rule 43 and the finding recorded in such proceedings can form the basis for action under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules for the purpose of withholding apart or whole of the pension payable to him, if his misconduct is found to be of the nature specified in the Rule. 4. The Rule clearly specifies that even if there is no departmental proceedings pending at the time of superannuation, the departmental proceedings for the purpose of Rule 43(b) may be initiated subject to the conditions laid down in the Rule, such as that it shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings, etc. This obviously has no application where there are pending departmental proceedings, at the time of superannuation because Clause (a) of the proviso to Rule 43(b) in terms excludes from its operation the proceedings, which was already initiated when the Government servant was on duty either before retirement, or during re-employment. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that even if a departmental proceedings are pending against a Government servant, who superannuates before the conclusion of the proceedings, for the purpose of continuance of such proceedings, even for the limited purpose of Rule 43(b), a fresh order may have to be passed. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that even if a departmental proceedings are pending against a Government servant, who superannuates before the conclusion of the proceedings, for the purpose of continuance of such proceedings, even for the limited purpose of Rule 43(b), a fresh order may have to be passed. This matter was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in 1968 PLJR 634 Jagdhari Roy V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. and this Court observed that Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules authorizes the continuance of departmental proceedings initiated prior to the date of superannuation, and passing of an order of punishment for the recovery from the pension of the whole or any part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Government during service with the special sanction of the State Government, even if the officer is retired. 6. In the instant case, in view of the facts not in dispute, the departmental proceedings, which had been initiated while the appellant was in service, may be continued for the purpose of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. We find no error in the judgment of the learned Judge. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.