JUDGMENT Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was originally filed against an order contained in annexure 6 dated 20th November, 1992 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna by which 10 per cent pension and entire amount of gratuity of the petitioner was withheld on the ground of pendency of charges. Subsequently an amendment petition was allowed by order dated 16.9.97 passed on I.A. No. 4125 of 1997 through which the order dated 1.8.97 issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna as contained in annexure 12 by which in exercise of power under Rule 139 (b) of the Bihar .Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') 5 per cent of petitioner's pension has been finally withheld, has been challenged in this writ application. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the writ application are, in short as follows : The petitioner was appointed on 4.1.1960 as sub-Deputy-Collector in the Bihar Administrative Service. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector in the year 1971 and to the post of Additional Collector in May 1983. While the petitioner was posted as Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Bettiah certain allegations of having committed illegality/irregularities with regard to appointments/promotions of certain Class-III and Class-IV employees were levelled against him and a show cause notice was served upon him along with the charges to the aforesaid effect through a letter from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, dated 8.12.1983 (annexure-1). The petitioner submitted his show cause dated 13th July, 1984 as contained in annexure-4 and explained the charges mainly on the ground of prevailing past practice and tried to justify the appointments/promotions made by him on ad hoc basis. Admittedly the said appointments/promotions had been cancelled by the appropriate authorities but it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that nine out of 46 such affected persons were later on found fit and given the appointments/promotions. The petitioner retired on 31st, December, 1991 and it is his case that till then no punishment or any adverse remarks was communicated to him and he presumed that after submission of his show cause in July, 1984 the allegations levelled against him must have been dropped. 3. The petitioner retired on 31st, December, 1991 and it is his case that till then no punishment or any adverse remarks was communicated to him and he presumed that after submission of his show cause in July, 1984 the allegations levelled against him must have been dropped. 3. After his retirement the petitioner submitted his pension papers on 11.2.1992 and thereafter by the impugned order dated 20.11.1992 (annexure-6) he was allowed only 90 per cent as provisional pension and 10 per cent of his pension along with entire gratuity amount was withheld on the ground of pendency of charges. Even after more than four years from his retirement no final orders were communicated to him and thereafter he filed this writ application in 1996 and as stated above, brought subsequent events on record of this case through an amendment petition and challenged the impugned order contained in annexure 12. From the amendment petition it transpires that a show cause notice dated 2.12.96 (annexure-10) under Rule 139 (b) of the rules was served upon him asking him to show cause as to why 5 per cent of his pension should not be deducted on account of proof of charges. Through annexure 11 the petitioner submitted his show cause to the aforesaid notice and asserted that till 28.6.1996, as was apparent from a letter of the Personnel Department dated 28.6.96 communicated to the petitioner through a letter dated 12.8.96 issued by Under Secretary to Lokayukta, Bihar, no final decision had been taken on the explanations submitted by the petitioner in July, 1984. The petitioner also asserted that no decision on his said explanation had been communicated to him even till date. He further denied the allegations made against him and prayed for release of his full pension and gratuity. Thereafter the impugned order dated 1.8.97 as contained in annexure 12 was communicated to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as contained in annexure 12 and submitted that Rule 139 (b) of the Rules was not at all attracted in the case of the petitioner because no adverse remarks were ever communicated to him and hence it was not open to the respondents to allege and hold, after he had retired from service, that his service had not been thoroughly, satisfactory. Under rule 139 (b) the authority sanctioning the pension has been given power to make such reduction in the amount it thinks proper if the service of the concerned employee has not been found thoroughly satisfactory. Such power as is apparent from the rules itself has to be exercised on the basis of service record of the concerned employee. Such a provision has been incorporated apparently to meet type of cases where a pensioner may not have been held guilty of grave misconduct or of having caused pecuniary loss to the Government but yet his service record itself is sufficient to draw an irresistible conclusion that his service had not been thoroughly satisfactory. Reduction of pension in a case of aforesaid nature is not only permissible under rule 139 (b) but is also desirable to keep government servant active and faithful in their duties so that their confidential reports may not be bad and of such a nature as to bring their case under threat of reduction of pension under rule 139 (b). 5. However exercise of power under rule 139(b) must be done carefully and on the basis of entire service record of the pensioner. Such a power cannot be permitted to be exercised in a case where particular charges have been levelled against the employee concerned, of howsoever grave nature they may be, but where no finding could be arrived at in accordance with permissible procedure of departmental or judicial proceeding to hold that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. In other words, the power under rule 139 (b) cannot replace the power to withhold or withdraw pension under rule 43(b) of the rules because the latter explicitly provides for withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it only after necessary finding in that regard is arrived at in a departmental or judicial proceeding of a nature permissible under rule 43(b). To hold otherwise would render the protection given to a pensioner under rule 43(b) meaningless and superfluous. 6. Rule 139 (c) no doubt gives power to the State Government to reduce pension in case it is satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. 6. Rule 139 (c) no doubt gives power to the State Government to reduce pension in case it is satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. But such power is only a revisional power and use of the word "satisfy" shows that there must be objective satisfaction on the basis of relevant and cogent materials. In exercise of such power by the State Government the same principle should be applicable as have been indicated above in connection with exercise of power under rule 139(b) by the authority sanctioning pension, in all such case where the reduction in pension is proposed on the ground that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory. So far as exercise of power under rule 139 (c) on the ground of there being proof of grave misconduct against the pensioner is concerned, such proof must have been found in an appropriate departmental or judicial proceeding in accordance with the Service rules and Bihar Pension Rules. 7. On the basis of aforesaid submissions and discussions it has to be held in this case that the order contained in annexure 12 is against the law and fit to be quashed because the respondents failed to show that the service record of the petitioner was not thoroughly satisfactory. No such finding has been given in annexure 12 nor such ground is mentioned in annexure 10, the show cause notice although rule 139 (b) has been mentioned therein. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that no adverse remarks were communicated to him during its service tenure was also not disputed. As a matter of fact the impugned action against the petitioner is based upon a presumption that there was proof of grave misconduct against the petitioner. However, no such finding arrived at in any departmental proceeding was ever communicated to the petitioner nor there is any such finding in any judicial proceeding. Such a finding or of proof, for taking action under the rules for the purpose of reduction of pension must the separately communicated to be pensioner so that he may, if aggrieved, prefer an appeal against such finding under rule 56 (c) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules whereever applicable. 8. Such a finding or of proof, for taking action under the rules for the purpose of reduction of pension must the separately communicated to be pensioner so that he may, if aggrieved, prefer an appeal against such finding under rule 56 (c) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules whereever applicable. 8. On behalf of respondents it could not be denied that there was no finding of grave misconduct against the petitioner in any proceeding but it was submitted that even in absence of any such finding power under rule 139 could be exercised on the basis of relevant facts disclosed in the show cause notice. Such submission cannot be accepted in view of aforesaid discussions and finding made with regard to rule 139(b) or (c) of the rules. Hence, in the facts of the case, it has to be held that the impugned order contained in annexure 12 ordering for reduction to petitioner's pension by 5 per cent in exercise of power under rule 139 of the rules is illegal and not permissible in law. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order as contained in annexure 12 is quashed. The respondents are directed to restore full pension to the petitioner and pay all the arrears on that count within a period of four months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.