Judgment 1. The petitioner is aggrieved on account of non-payment of his remaining 10% of pension and 10% of the amount of gratuity, though he superannuated from service of the State long back on 28.2.1995. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State from which it appears that no proceeding in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules has been initiated and/or pending against the petitioner. It seems that an explanation was called for from the petitioner vide letter dated 14th September, 1998, contained in Annexure-5 purporting to be in terms of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. It is not the case of the Respondents that any order relating to pension was passed, which the State Government later considered to revise, and accordingly the said explanation was issued under sub-clause (c) of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Annexure -5 also does not indicate that the show cause was issued in terms of Rule 139(c) of the said Rules. 3. It is by now well settled that after the Government servant ceases to be in employment after his superannuation from service, the Government can withhold pension only in terms of Rule 43(b) of the said Rules, which vests power to initiate departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding with certain riders provided therein. On conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Rule 43(b) and 139(a) & (b), it has been held that no action in terms of Rule 139 is permissible unless the action in terms of Rule 43(b) is taken against the Government servant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the allegation in the charge against the petitioner in the explanation called for vide annexure-5 with respect to excess payment for which necessary adjustment was already made from the salary of the person concerned, namely, Ramanuj Singh, and as such withholding of payment of the remaining amount of pension and gratuity by the Respondents is mala fide. In this regard, he referred to the statement made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition in which it is stated that the Accountant General as far back as in the year 1996 had adjusted the Said amount. This fact though has been answered in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, but has not been denied. 5. In this regard, he referred to the statement made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition in which it is stated that the Accountant General as far back as in the year 1996 had adjusted the Said amount. This fact though has been answered in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, but has not been denied. 5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that no action has been taken against the petitioner in terms of Rule 43(b) and as such, in may opinion, withholding of the remaining amount of pension by the Respondents is bad in law. 6. The writ petition is, the, allowed. The Respondents are directed, to release the remaining amount of pension including the gratuity by issuing necessary sanction order within two weeks of the receipt/production of the copy of this order.