Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17th July 96 passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and Special Secretary, Government of Bihar, whereby and where-under the said Respondent ordered to reduce 25% of the pension of petitioner on the ground that his service was not found to be satisfactory. 2. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant one. 3. The petitioner was in the services of the State in the Bihar Finance Service. While in service, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on 13th September 90. The allegations relating to violations of different rules of Bihar Government Servant . Conduct Rules, 1976 were levelled, the petitioner having not given information/not obtained permission relating to business of his wife; disposal of car; borrowing interest free loan from the friends and relatives; and in the matter of purchase of land and construction of house. 4. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner took part and denied the allegations. The Enquiry Officer taking into cosideration the relevant evidences held the charges proved except one of the charge vide its report dated 30th April 92. 5. At this stage, the petitioner was functioning as Asstt. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. No final order was passed in the said proceeding and petitioner superannuated from service on 31st December 94. After superannuation of the petitioner, the 2nd Respondent, Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and Special Secretary issued a show cause notice vide letter dated 4th Nov.95, as to why his pension be not reduced and on receipt of reply he passed the impugned order on 17th July 96. In view of finding given by the Enquiry Officer, because of misconduct, it was ordered to reduce 25% of pension of the petitioner. 6. The Respondents in their counter affidavit have taken plea that the order has been issued under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 . According to them, opportunity was given to the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer having found misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the impugned order of reduction of 25% of pension has been passed. 7. From the enquiry report and allegations, it will be evident that the petitioner was found to have flouted the, provisions of Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976. 7. From the enquiry report and allegations, it will be evident that the petitioner was found to have flouted the, provisions of Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976. His wife started business without prior permission; the petitioner soid his car without prior intimation; he obtained loan from the friends and relatives without intimation to the Govt. etc. However, no allegation has been levelled against him relating to any pecuniary loss to the Government. 8. Under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the State Government is clothed with power to withhold or withdraw pension or part thereof, permanently or for a specific period. It can also order to recover pension whole or part, if any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the petitioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Govt. by misconduct or negligence. If proceeding is not initiated prior to the retirement, after retirement such proceeding can be initiated by the State but only in respect of charges which are of within four years of the date of initiation of proceeding. However, under sub-rule (a) below explanation to the Rule 43(b), departmental proceeding initiated during the service period shall be deemed to be a proceeding initiated under Rule 43(b). For the purpose of passing an order under Rule 43(b), it is also mandatory to consult B.P.S.C. before passing final order. 9. From the impugned order, it will be evident that the order of curtailment of 25% of pension has been passed not by the State Govt. but by the Respondent No.2 Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and Special Secretary, Govt. of Bihar. Though, it is stated that said order has been issued at the instance of the State, but there is nothing on the record to suggest that such order was passed on behalf of the State of Bihar. It further appears that prior to issuance of the impugned order dated 17th July 96, the B.P.S.C. was not consulted in terms with sub-rule (3) to proviso to rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules. 10. Apart from the aforesaid fact, it appears that though misconduct was alleged against the petitioner, the authorities before passing the order did not choose to find out as to whether it was "grave" or not as withholdment of pension under Rule 43(b) can be made by the State Govt. 10. Apart from the aforesaid fact, it appears that though misconduct was alleged against the petitioner, the authorities before passing the order did not choose to find out as to whether it was "grave" or not as withholdment of pension under Rule 43(b) can be made by the State Govt. if the Govt. servant is found to be guilty of grave misconduct. 11. In view of aforesaid infirmities, I set aside the order dated 17th July 96 (Annexure-6) and remit the matter to the State of Bihar to take a decision, in accordance with law, in terms with Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. They will take into consideration the gravity of the charges and pass appropriate order, if necessary, after consultation with the B.P.S.C. 12. A decision, in this respect, be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. There shall, however, be no order, as to costs.