JUDGMENT Shiva Kirti Singh, J. In the writ application tiled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is widow of late Ram Sakal Ram who died on 20.8.1980 while in, service as Inspector in the Revenue Sub Division, Gandak Project, Bettiah. The prayer of the petitioner is for directions to the respondents to pay along with interest and costs the family pension and other death cum-retirement benefits to the petitioner on account of death of her husband who died while in service under the respondent State of Bihar. This writ application involves interpretation of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules because according to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents have wrongly withheld the death-cum-retirement benefits payable to the petitioner on account of alleged dues against her husband. According to the petitioner any claim against her deceased husband could have been finalised and a deduction made only after institution or continuing a proceeding permissible under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. 2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. According to the petitioner by annexure-1 a letter dated 23.11.1991 the amount shown to be pending due with her deceased husband was only Rs. 13,433/- but subsequently, as appears from the counter-affidavit, it went on increasing from time to time and hence according to the petitioner, the claim of the respondents cannot be given any credibility. According to the petitioner she should have been paid entire death-cum-retirement benefits without any deductions immediately after death of her husband in 1980 and deductions made from the payable dues or realised from the petitioner later on are clearly illegal and impermissible in law. 3. According to the respondents dues against the deceased husband of the petitioner could not be realised from him because of his sudden death while in service and hence by resorting to simple accounting on the basis of Government records and vouchers available in the office dues against the deceased have been worked out and therefore, in the facts of the case Rule 43(b) has no application at all. According to learned counsel for the respondent Rule 43(b) of the Rules will be applicable only in those cases where there is allegation of grave misconduct or of having caused pecuniary loss to the Government. 4. According to learned counsel for the respondent Rule 43(b) of the Rules will be applicable only in those cases where there is allegation of grave misconduct or of having caused pecuniary loss to the Government. 4. On perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit and also from the documents annexed thereto it transpires that on the death of petitioner's husband a particular amount was outstanding against him as temporary advance received from the Division Office by the deceased for adjustment. The counter-affidavit further shows that the locked office chambers and residential rooms of late Ram Sakal Ram were opened and an inventory or records were prepared in the presence of a magistrate and after adjustment of all the vouchers recovered in the inventory, out of Rs. 2,03,712.49 only a sum of Rs. 25,433.00 had been found left outstanding against late Ram Sakal Ram. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 25,433.00 is thus clearly based upon official records and the said amount may be described as dues against late Ram Sakal Ram on the basis of simple accounting. 5. However, besides the aforesaid amount a number of other amounts claimed to have been defalcated by the deceased in earlier years or amounts said to have been found due on account of deceased not handed over charge to his successor etc. are clearly claims not based on accounting but on charges which may be covered by the description of either misconduct or pecuniary loss to the Government as used in Rule 43(b) of the Rules. 6. In my view, in case of an employee suddenly dying while in employment, there may be certain dues based upon official records which can be safely described as dues arising out of simple accounting. These may cover unpaid advances taken for housing or other purposes. Such dues may be realised without resorting to procedure of Rule 43(b) because Rule 43(b) is applicable only to cases where a departmental or judicial proceeding is either pending or has to be initiated on account of gross misconduct or on account of causing pecuniary loss to the Government. These may cover unpaid advances taken for housing or other purposes. Such dues may be realised without resorting to procedure of Rule 43(b) because Rule 43(b) is applicable only to cases where a departmental or judicial proceeding is either pending or has to be initiated on account of gross misconduct or on account of causing pecuniary loss to the Government. Further, a closer scrutiny of Rule 43(b) shows that it is by way of a general provision relating to grant of pension and withholding thereof when the employee has retired or superannuated from the Government service and hence it cannot fully and properly take care of situation arising on account of death of an employee. In latter case, necessary accounting has to be done to settle claims arising on account of death. While paying such claims to the family of the deceased employee, the Government will have the power to adjust whatever is found due against the deceased on proper accounting. 7. As noticed earlier in this case only Rs. 25,433/- was found outstanding against the deceased on account of temporary advance after taking into consideration and adjustment of all vouchers. Hence in my view only that amount could have been adjusted against the death-cum-retiral dues payable to the petitioner. Rest all other dues claimed by the respondents fall into the category where recovery can be ordered only after a departmental or judicial proceeding has been held and a finding has been arrived at in accordance with law as regards the amount found due against a pensioner. In this case admittedly no departmental or judicial proceeding was ever instituted although the husband of the petitioner died about 19 years back. Hence no question of making further adjustment beyond the aforesaid amount of Rs. 25,433/- can arise in this case. From the records and figures available therein it appears that the respondents have realised either by adjustment or by asking the petitioner to deposit amount towards dues of her deceased husband a total amount of Rs. 83 thousand and odd whereas they were entitled to adjust only 25,433/-. Hence the writ application has to be allowed to the extent indicated above and accordingly, respondents are directed to refund all the excess money amounting to Rs. 83 thousand and odd whereas they were entitled to adjust only 25,433/-. Hence the writ application has to be allowed to the extent indicated above and accordingly, respondents are directed to refund all the excess money amounting to Rs. 57 thousand and odd to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for the period such amounts have been illegally kept by the respondents. All the aforesaid lawful dues of the petitioner must be paid within four months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. 8. Before parting with the judgment, it is relevant to refer to an argument on behalf of the State that in such cases where there is death of an employee while in service, it is not possible to hold any departmental or judicial proceeding against him under Rule 43(b) of the Rules and hence the State should be permitted to determine itself all the dues to be realised from the death-cum-retirement benefits payable to the family of the deceased employee. Such submission is based upon misconception of the Rule of Law. If there be any disputed claim based upon misconduct etc. against a deceased employee, then the State like an ordinary person is free to obtain a judgment and decree from a competent Court of Law but it cannot usurp to itself the power of deciding its own claim against the deceased employee or his family. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is allowed with costs which is quantified at Rs. 2,000/-.