Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire departmental proceeding started vide letter No. 1227 dated 17-11-1998 (Annexure-3) after his superannuation from service tin 31-7-1998, for the alleged misappropriation of Government money, and has, further sought for direction to the Respondents to pay his post-retiral dues which have been kept withheld. 2. On 17-12-1999, learned Government Pleader No. 1 produced two Bank drafts--One for Rs. 51.488.00 and the other for Rs. 75,712.00 being the amount of provisional pension and provisional gratuity and also letter No. 716 dated 15-12-1999 forwarding the pension papers of the petitioner to the Accountant-General, Bihar, Patna for fixation of final pension, gratuity, unutilised leave, Group Insurance, etc. The Bank drafts and the copy of the forwarding letter were handed over to the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Accountant-General vide order dated 17-12-1999 was directed to issue necessary authority slip for payment of the same within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of the said order. 3. On the question of validity of the proceeding initiated vide Annexure-3, whether it can continue or not, as agreed learned Counsel for the parties were heard in detail and the order was reserved. 4. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner retired, while working as Nazir of Khuntpani Block on 31-7-1998. No departmental proceeding or criminal prosecution was ever initiated or registered against him during the entire tenure of his service. It is claimed that even explanation was never called for from him in respect of any allegation whatsoever. However, on 1-7-1998 petitioner was suspended and subsequently, vide order contained in Memo No. 614 dated 12-8-1998 the order of suspension was revoked with effect from the date of retirement, and the petitioner was allowed to superannuate on 31-7-1998. A true copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. From perusal of the said order, it is evident that the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum directed for continuance of the departmental proceeding even after the retirement of the petitioner, and vide letter No. 1227 dated 30th October, 1998 charges were served and departmental proceeding was initiated against him, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. From perusal of the said order, it is evident that the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum directed for continuance of the departmental proceeding even after the retirement of the petitioner, and vide letter No. 1227 dated 30th October, 1998 charges were served and departmental proceeding was initiated against him, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though no proceeding was initiated before retirement of the petitioner, but vide order, contained in Annexure-2 while revoking suspension, the proceeding was sought to be continued and vide impugned order charges have been served only after his retirement. According to the learned Counsel, though the said order does not mention as to under what power the same has been passed, but it is quite obvious that after retirement the only power vested in the authority to initiate action on such charges is one under proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. It is submitted that no sanction of the State Government as required under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) to the proviso to Rule 43 (b) was ever taken before serving the memorandum of charges to the petitioner on 19-11-1998. In this regard, he referred to the statement made in paragraph 13 of the writ application in which petitioner has specifically stated that no sanction of the State Government as required by Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was ever taken before serving memorandum of charges to him on 19-11-1998. Although counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents, but the said fact has not been denied. In reply to the said statement, it has, however, been stated that as soon as the petitioner was suspended on 1-7-98, it is treated that the initial action of proceeding has been started. It is further stated that para 3 of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules provides that the departmental proceeding may be continued if the allegation of pecuniary loss caused to the Government during his service is found and under the said circumstances sanction order of the State Government does not arise. 6. It is further stated that para 3 of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules provides that the departmental proceeding may be continued if the allegation of pecuniary loss caused to the Government during his service is found and under the said circumstances sanction order of the State Government does not arise. 6. Learned Government Pleader No. I appearing for the State submitted that under Clause (a) of the Explanation to the said proviso, a departmental proceeding is deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed, against the pensioner are issued to him or, if the Government Servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. According to him, the present case is covered by the said Explanation as the petitioner was placed under suspension before his retirement and under such circumstances the proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when he was placed under suspension i.e. even before his retirement. As such, it was submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the sanction of the State Government as per Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) to the said proviso was not at all required in the present case and non-compliance of the same shall not vitiate the proceeding. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that after the order of suspension of the petitioner was revoked and he was allowed to superannuate, the relationship of master and servant ceased and the only course open for initiating a departmental proceeding against him for the alleged charges was in terms of proviso to Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, and such departmental proceeding cannot be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government as provided for in Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of the said proviso. 8. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Once the order of suspension of the petitioner was revoked and he was allowed to superannuate, the relationship of master and servant ceased whereafter for initiation of such proceeding, the only power vested is under the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. This Court has elaborately considered the scope of the said provision in the case of Sachchidanand Singh V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. This Court has elaborately considered the scope of the said provision in the case of Sachchidanand Singh V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1999(3) BLJR 513, and held that to continue the departmental proceeding after the retirement of the Government servant, it is necessary to pass a specific order under Rule 43(b) otherwise the proceeding initiated while in service will meet its natural death on account of his retirement and his ceasing to be in service, on the premise that after retirement the relationship of master and servant ceases and no order to the retirement of employee can be passed unless rules specifically provide for it. 9. In the present case, the proceeding was not even initiated while he was in service and as such the plea regarding continuance of such proceeding taken on behalf of the State is completely misconceived and not tenable. It is by now well settled that after a person is allowed to superannuate the relationship of master and servant ceases and no order to the retirement of the employee concerned can be passed unless the Rule specifically provides for it and vests power in the authority. (See -- , Kirti Bhusan Singh V/s. State of Bihar. 10. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena V/s. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors. , held that once the appellant had retired from service on 30-6-1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental inquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. It was held that in absence of such authority the inquiry had lapsed and the appellant is entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement. It was held that in absence of such authority the inquiry had lapsed and the appellant is entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement. Rule 43(b) certainly vests power in the State Government for withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it and also for ordering for recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government 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 Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement, and under its proviso, for passing such an order, the Government has been vested with the power to initiate departmental proceeding even if not instituted prior to the retirement of a Government servant or during his re-employment with certain riders provided therein, one of which is that such proceeding shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government. Plain reading of Rule 43(b) shows that the power is to be exercised by the State Government strictly in terms thereof by passing specific final order either immediately before retirement of a Government servant in a case where the inquiry is already instituted or by passing fresh order instituting a proceeding in terms of Clause (a) of proviso to Rule 43 (b). There cannot be any question of automatic continuance of the proceeding in the absence of specific provision like the one contained in Rule 9(2) of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 while dealing with an employee of the State Government after cessation of the relationship of master and servant after his retirement. However, in the instant case, learned Counsel for the State has failed to show that any such proceeding was even initiated while the petitioner was in service. 11. Admittedly, charges vide impugned order was served upon the petitioner only after his retirement. It is true that under Explanation to the said proviso for the purpose of the Rule, a departmental proceeding is deemed to have been instituted when the charges are issued to the pensioner or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. It is true that under Explanation to the said proviso for the purpose of the Rule, a departmental proceeding is deemed to have been instituted when the charges are issued to the pensioner or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. But, in absence of specific rule like one contained in Rule 9(2) of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 for continuance of a proceeding instituted while in service, even after retirement, the said Explanation can have only bearing on a departmental proceeding instituted after retirement of a Government servant in terms of proviso to Rule 43(b). At best the aid of the said Explanation may be relevant only for the purpose of consideration of riders provided in the proviso and the same cannot at all be applied to a case where the departmental proceeding lapsed on superannuation, much less to a case where the proceeding as not even initiated while a Government servant was in service as in the present case. 12. Learned Government Pleader No. 1 has relied upon the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dr. Shyam Nand Singh V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1999 (1) PLJR 766. This Court fails to appreciate as to how the said decision is of any help to the Respondents. In the said case, the delinquent was already under suspension which was later revoked and the departmental proceeding was initiated before his superannuation and under such circumstances, learned Single Judge held that he cannot claim protection of proviso to Rule 43(b). It was not a case where departmental proceeding itself was initiated after superannuation of the Government Servant. Learned Government Header also placed reliance upon another decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Braj Kishore Prasad Srivastava V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. reported in 1998(2) PLJR , 744. This Court fails to appreciate as to how the said decision also helps the Respondents. In the said case also, the proceeding had been initiated against the employee with regard to his misconduct while he was in service and under such circumstances it was held that the same does not come to an end as a result of superannuation and the proceeding can be continued. In the said case also, the proceeding had been initiated against the employee with regard to his misconduct while he was in service and under such circumstances it was held that the same does not come to an end as a result of superannuation and the proceeding can be continued. This Court considers it pertinent to mention here that this aspect also has elaborately been considered in the case of Sachchidanand Singh V/s. State of Bihar (supra) and relying upon various decision of the apex Court held that such proceeding cannot continue unless the Rule specifically provides for it like one contained in Rule 9(2) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972. 13. Learned Government Pleader also placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Bahadur Sinha V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 724. The principle laid down in the said case has no application to the facts of the present case. In fact, in the said case the Division Bench also held that there can be no dispute that departmental or judicial proceeding for the purpose of exercise of power under Rule 43(b) can be initiated within the parameters of the restrictive provision as contained in proviso and the Explanation to the Rule. It was also held that there cannot be any dispute either in withholding or withdrawal of the amount of pension or its recovery as a measure of punishment can be made only after the person concerned has actually been found guilty of grave misconduct or caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence during the tenure of his service. However, the Division Bench also held that the State Government is competent to withhold whole or part of the amount of pension as interim measure where the departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding has already been instituted or where a decision to institute the same has already been taken. This Court considers it pertinent to mention here that in another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. This Court considers it pertinent to mention here that in another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. L.P.A. No. 124 of 1999, disposed of on 26-8-1.999, it has been held that, the Rule is quite clear and it is only in the case of proved misconduct that a part or whole of the pension can be withheld, and that the pensionary dues payable including gratuity, which is also pension within the meaning of Bihar Pension Rules, cannot be withheld till such time as an order is passed under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Similarly, the leave encashment dues also cannot be withheld since that is paid in lieu of unutilised leave and, therefore, par-takes the character of salary. However, neither of the said principle laid down by the two Division Bench judgment of this Court has any application to the present case, where the proceeding initiated vide impugned order, contained in Annexure-3 itself is in violation of Sub-clause (i) to Clause (a) of the proviso to Rule 43(b), as by the said order the proceeding has been admittedly instituted without the sanction of the State Government. Under such circumstances, the Respondents were not legally justified in withholding the pension of the petitioner now for over one and half years. 14. The writ application is, thus, allowed and the departmental proceeding initiated vide impugned order, contained in Annexure-3 is hereby quashed. Respondents including Accountant-General, Bihar (Respondent No. 7) are directed to take all necessary steps for payment of the remaining dues of the petitioner within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for awarding cost of Rs. 2,000.00 , which shall be paid to the petitioner by the sanctioning authority from his pocket within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.