Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the notification dated 20-7-96 by reason of which, the Water Resources Department directed to recover Rs. 3 lakh which, according to the department, is seventy per cent of the total loss of Rs. 4 lacs approximately from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made to direct the authorities to pay the balance amount of post retirement benefits including 10 per cent pension, full gratuity and other dues. He has also prayed for a direction for payment of full salary for the period 1-1-1995 to 23-2-1995 during which the petitioner, even after retirement, was directed to continue to work in the same post. Prayer for interest (a.; 10% has also been made. 2. Some factual backgrounds may be necessary to be stated for appreciation of the contention raised by the pasties. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Water Resources Department (hereinafter referred to as the Department) and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and thereafter as Superintending Engineer. In the year 1989, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer and thereafter, was promoted to the post of Project C j ordinator, which is equivalent to the post of Engineer-in-Chief and was transferred from Siwan. The petitioner joined the said post on 1-2-1991, 4. While serving as Engineer-in-Chief a show-cause notice was issued to him on 15-3-1993 directing to explain regarding some irregularities said to have been committed by him when he was posted as Chief Engineer at Siwari during 1st September, 1989 to 10th February, 1991, The said show-cause notice is Annexure-3 to this writ application. The petitioner shown his cause on 11-6-1993 explaining the circumstances and denying the charges levelled against him. The said reply is Annexure-4 to this writ application. Admittedly thereafter no further step was taken against, him by either registering a criminal case or a departmental proceeding, 5. After attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31-12-1994 as Engineer-in-Chief. However, by letter dated 31-12-1994 the authorities asked the petitioner to continue against the said post subject to necessary approval for extension of his service by the State Government. This letter of request is Annexure-5. After attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31-12-1994 as Engineer-in-Chief. However, by letter dated 31-12-1994 the authorities asked the petitioner to continue against the said post subject to necessary approval for extension of his service by the State Government. This letter of request is Annexure-5. There is no denial of the fact that pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner continued to work till 23-2-1995 but by letter dated 20-2-1995 he was informed that as there was remote chance of such approval of the extension in service, he should stop to function against the said post. The petitioner complied with the said order. The letter dated 20-2-1995 is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the salary for this extended period was not paid to him till the filing of the writ application, 6. It is stated that immediately after retirement the petitioner filed necessary documents regarding his post-retirement benefits. However, the authorities only released 90% of his pensionary amount including leave salary, provident fund, etc. but withheld 10% amount of the pension gratuity amount and other benefits including salary for the period 1 -1-1995 to 23-2-1995. When the petitioner was waiting for getting the dues as aforesaid, the department came out with a notification dated 20-7-1996 imposing punishment to the petitioner. Apart from recovery of Rs. 3 lakh from the petitioner censor was ordered to be recorded in the Character roll for the year 1991 -92. This notification has been impugned by the petitioner. 7. Mr. Mukhopadhaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has con- -tended that when admittedly after receiving the reply to the show-cause notice from the petitioner, the department neither initiated a departmental proceeding nor lodged any criminal case against him, the authorities could not have inflicted punishment as contained in Annexure-1. According to him, in issuing the said notification, the authorities have neither complied with the provisions as contemplated under Rule 43(b) or Rule 139(c) of Bihar Pension Rules. Even on factual aspect learned Counsel has submitted that the punishment meted out to the petitioner is unsustainable because in the notice to show cause (Annexure-3) three persons were named including the petitioner against whom allegation of some financial irregularities was made but except the petitioner no other person was proceeded against. Even on factual aspect learned Counsel has submitted that the punishment meted out to the petitioner is unsustainable because in the notice to show cause (Annexure-3) three persons were named including the petitioner against whom allegation of some financial irregularities was made but except the petitioner no other person was proceeded against. Lastly, learned Counsel contends that according to the notice to show cause the pecuniary loss suffered by the State Government is to the tune of about Rs. 82.600.00 but without determining the individual liability, the authorities have directed recovery of Rs. 3 lakh from the petitioner alone. 8. Uncontrovertedly, the petitioner was posted as Chief Engineer at Siwan in between 1-9-1989 to 10-2-1991. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of project coordinator, the post equivalent to the Chief Engineer in tube well wing of Minor Irrigation under Water Resources Department. In show-cause notice, the allegations made against the petitioner was ; (i) that he, while posted as Chief Engineer, placed some orders for purchase of the parts of road rollers for about Rs. 4 lakh (ii) there was no necessity for purchase of those parts because sufficient amount of Rs. 60,000.00 was there for repairing one road roller near Gopalganj and (iii) he acted in violation of the Government letter of November, 1990 which clearly states that only the department was entitled to issue any purchase order. The petitioner and Executive Engineer, Sri Kedar Nath Singh, were wholly responsible for violating those directions of the Government. The Executive Engineer was also held responsible in this show cause as he failed to get delivery of the parts from the railway station of Gopalganj for which the department had to pay demurrage to the tune-of Rs. 22,626.00 . So far Sri Nizamuddin Ansari, Technical Secretary to the Chief Engineer is concerned, the allegations is also there against him for placing notes for purchase of aforesaid parts. 9. Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, learned Addl. A.-G. appearing on behalf of the Respondents, however, contends that the allegation against the petitioner was that he acted beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction by placing orders of some parts of the road roller to the tune of Rs. 4 lakh and, as such, the State Government has suffered loss of the said amount. 9. Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, learned Addl. A.-G. appearing on behalf of the Respondents, however, contends that the allegation against the petitioner was that he acted beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction by placing orders of some parts of the road roller to the tune of Rs. 4 lakh and, as such, the State Government has suffered loss of the said amount. According to him the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner while he was in service and, as such, it would be deemed that a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which continued even after his retirement. As such, the impugned order has been passed for recovery of the said amount under the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. But in all fairness, Mr. Roy contends that in view of law laid down by this Court, the authority ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned order under Sec. 43(b). He, however, submits that if the order is set aside the authority should be given a liberty to pass a fresh order after complying with the principles of natural justice. 10. Rule 43 (b) contemplates as follows: The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in 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. Thus, even assuming for the time being that the impugned order was passed under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules but definitely the same has been passed without holding the petitioner guilty of gross misconduct either in a departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding. As stated above, after receiving the reply from the petitioner the authority did not chose to proceed against him either departmentally or judicially and under these circumstances by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the impugned order has been passed in exercise of power under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules. 11. As stated above, after receiving the reply from the petitioner the authority did not chose to proceed against him either departmentally or judicially and under these circumstances by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the impugned order has been passed in exercise of power under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules. 11. From the facts aforesaid, it reveals that the petitioner as Chief Engineer at Siwan placed certain order for purchase of some parts which was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction but it is not the allegation that actually the said parts were not purchased, rather in the show cause itself it has been admitted that all those materials became the property of the department and, as such, Sri Kedar Nath Singh, Executive Engineer, ought to have received the delivery of those materials from the railway station. Thus, in my view, even assuming that he petitioner placed the purchase orders beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction and that too in violation of Government letter of November 1990 but that might be a case of dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. Admittedly, no departmental proceeding was initiated against him for any such act. Moreover, when the parts were already purchased and became the property of the State Government, then it cannot be said that due to placing of those purchase orders the petitioner caused any pecuniary loss to the State Government. 12. Another aspect of the matter is that admittedly after the petitioner filed his show cause on 11-6-93 no action was taken either by issuing chargesheet or by suspending the petitioner contemplating any departmental proceeding. On the other hand, he was promoted to the post of Engineer-in-chief or 1-2-91. It was only when the petitioner was promoted to the higher post of Engineer-in-chief in 1991, a show cause notice was issued in 1993 for certain irregularity said to have been committed by him between 1-9-89 to 10-2-91. It is not the case of the Respondent-State that after receiving the reply of the petitioner any charge-sheet was ever issued or any departmental proceeding was initiated. 13. Under these circumstances, in my view, the authority could not have passed the impugned order either in exercising its power under Rule 43(b) or Rule 139(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules. These two rules have been incorporated by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Md. 13. Under these circumstances, in my view, the authority could not have passed the impugned order either in exercising its power under Rule 43(b) or Rule 139(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules. These two rules have been incorporated by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Idris Ansari V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1994 (1) PLJR 809. Interpreting Rule 139(c) their Lordships have, inter alia, held that in absence of gross misconduct, as distinguished from mere allegations of misconduct, the power under Rule 139 (a) and (b) could not be exercised by the State Government. Even if a wider meaning is given to Rule 139(b) by reading the said rule in the light of Rule 139(c), the power conferred thereby is not wide enough to confer on the Government jurisdiction and authority to reduce the pencil n of a retired Government servant without proof of grave misconduct in the absence of unsatisfactory service record. Such grave misconduct may either be proved before a Court of law, or even in a departmental proceeding. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case as noticed above, after filing of the reply to the show cause by the petitioner the department kept mum, which naturally means that the authority was satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner. Till the petitioner was in service no step was taken against him and only when he retired as Engineer-in-Chief the impugned notification was issued and that too without any proof either of misconduct or dereliction of his duty. Under these circumstances, in my view, impugned notification cannot be said to be legal one. Even accepting the contention of Mr. Roy that the impugned notification was issued in exercise of power under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules, even then I am of the view, that the same is illegal inasmuch as before issuing such notification the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to place his case before the authority. The petitioner did submit his explanation and if the authority was not satisfied with the said explanation, it was incumbent upon it; to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the circumstances by producing relevant documents. A learned Single Judge of this Court, recently in the case of Sri Ram Anugrah Narain V/s. The State of Bihar and Anr. The petitioner did submit his explanation and if the authority was not satisfied with the said explanation, it was incumbent upon it; to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the circumstances by producing relevant documents. A learned Single Judge of this Court, recently in the case of Sri Ram Anugrah Narain V/s. The State of Bihar and Anr. 1998 (3) PLJR 95, while interpreting the principles of natural justice vis-a-vis Rule 139 (b) of the Pension Rules has observed thus: That being the admitted legal position, this Court cannot accept that in imposing reduction of pension of a claimant the authority can exercise unfettered discretion which is based on its subjective satisfaction. On the other hand such an exercise of power has to be reasonable just and fair and must be in consonance with principles of natural justice. 15. Considering all aspects of the matter, I find that the impugned notification dated 20-7-1996, as contained in Annexure-1 cannot be sustained in law and thus it must be set aside. However, so far as the prayer for payment of salary for the period 1-1-1995 to 23-2-1995 is concerned, In my view, the petitioner is not legally entitled to get the same. After his retirement, he was directed to continue on the same post on the clear understanding that if his extension is not approved by the Cabinet, he will not be entitled to get any benefit of the said period. The letter dated 3-1-1995 as contained in Annexure-5 is to this effect. Before this letter, there was another letter dated 31-12-1994, as contained in Annexure-9, which also made it clear that extension of the period of service of the petitioner was under consideration by the Government for which some time may be consumed. The petitioner having accepted the position that his period of extension was depending upon the approval by the Cabinet joined the post and worked for certain period. However, ultimately the authority informed him that extension of his service was not approved by the Government and he was requested to stop work. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to get the salary for the said period. 16. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. However, ultimately the authority informed him that extension of his service was not approved by the Government and he was requested to stop work. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to get the salary for the said period. 16. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned notification issued under Memo No. 1478 dated 20-7-1996 is set aside and the authority is directed to pay the balance amount of all pensionary benefits including gratuity, etc. to the petitioner within four weeks from today. There will be no order as to costs. 17. After the judgment was dictated in Court Mr. Arun Kumar, learned J.C. to Addl. A.-G. 3 prays for two months time to comply with the direction. Permission is accorded. The authority must comply with the order within two months from today.