Judgment B.P.Singh, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar against the judgement and order of a learned Judge of this Court dated 26.7.1999 in CWJC No. 10452 of 1998 whereby the learned Judge quashed the impugned orders passed under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules impounding 100% pension payable to the respondent no. 1 for five years. 2. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal are not in dispute. A proceeding was initiated under rule 55 of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules against respondent no. 1. The resolution of the Government initiating the disciplinary proceeding against respondent No. 1 was issued by the order of the Governor and is dated 25.4.1996. A photocopy of the aforesaid resolution was annexed by respondent No. 1 to the writ petition as Annexure-12 from which it appears that the said resolution along with its enclosures, was communicated to respondent No. 1 under memo dated 25.4.1996. By the said resolution, an inquiry officer was appointed to conduct the proceeding. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 superannuated from service on 30th of April, 1996 only five days after the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. The resolution initiating the disciplinary proceeding was served upon respondent no. 1 on May 2, 1996, after his superannuation. 3. It is not in dispute that since respondent No. 1 superannuated from service on 30th April, 1996, a government order was issued by the order of the Governor on September 2, 1997 stating that since the departmental proceeding could not be concluded before the super-annuation of respondent No. 1, the said proceeding shall be continued for action under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules even after his superannuation. The said order has been annexed as An-nexure-14 to the writ petition. Thereafter the proceeding under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules continued and culminated in the impugned order, Annexure-18 dated September 11,1998. Four charges were found proved against respondent No. 1 and in view of the proved charges against respondent No. 1 in the disciplinary proceeding, an order was passed under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules withholding 100% of the pension payable to respondent No. 1 for a period of five years. 4. Four charges were found proved against respondent No. 1 and in view of the proved charges against respondent No. 1 in the disciplinary proceeding, an order was passed under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules withholding 100% of the pension payable to respondent No. 1 for a period of five years. 4. Two orders Annexure-14 dated September 2, 1997 continuing the departmental proceeding for the purpose of action under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and Annexure-18, dated September 11, 1998 the order withholding pension for five years passed under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, were impugned in the writ petition filed before this Court, and they have been quashed by the learned Judge by the impugned judgment and order which is in appeal before us. 5. Before the learned Judge it was submitted that the charges related to the period 3rd July, 1981 to 31st October, 1984 and therefore no proceeding could be initiated against respondent No. 1 in terms of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules with respect to an event which admittedly took place much beyond four years before the institution of the proceeding. In any view of the matter, the continuation of such proceeding initiated under rule 55 of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules was not permissible in law without extending the service of the concerned employee in the light of the provision contained in rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code. On the other hand it was contended on behalf of the State relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vs. Amrik Singh [1995 Supp (1) SCC 321] that the continuation of such a proceeding was permissible. 6. The learned judge distinguished the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision and held that Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules which permitted the State to take such action even after the retirement of the government servant, placed a limitation upon the power of the Government, inasmuch as such proceeding could not relate to an event which took place more than four years before the initiation of such proceeding. Since in the instant case, charges related to event which took place more than four years before the initiation of the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the same was not permissible in law. Since in the instant case, charges related to event which took place more than four years before the initiation of the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the same was not permissible in law. Accordingly, he quashed the impugned orders Annexures 14 and 18 and allowed the writ petition directing the appellant to release the full pension of respondent No. 1. 7. It would thus appear from the impugned judgement and order that the learned Judge has proceeded on the assumption that the order Annexure-16 dated September 2, 1997 which directed continuance of the proceeding initiated earlier on 25.4.1996 was really an initiation of a fresh proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Since the same related to events which took place more than four years before the passing of the aforesaid order, the same was not permissible in law. Consequently the proceeding taken was also bad in law, and the final order passed under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, An-nexure-18, dated September 11, 1998 also deserved to be quashed. 8. Before us the appellant State contended that the judgment of the learned Judge suffers from a basic fallacy inasmuch as he has proceeded on the basis that by order, Annexure-14, which directed the continuance of the departmental proceeding, a fresh proceeding was initiated against respondent No. 1 after his superannuation. According to him, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated on 25.4.1996 when the resolution initiating the proceeding along with charges framed against respondent No. 1 and other relevant documents were sent to him by memo dated 25.4.1996. The disciplinary proceeding was, therefore, initiated while the respondent was in service and the same was, therefore, continued after his superannuation for the purpose of action to be taken under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules after his superannuation. 9. On the other hand counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that without extending the service of respondent No. 1 under rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, no action could be taken under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules nor could the proceeding be continued for the purpose of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. 9. On the other hand counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that without extending the service of respondent No. 1 under rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, no action could be taken under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules nor could the proceeding be continued for the purpose of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Secondly, he contended that though the Government purported to initiate a departmental proceeding by issuance of order dated 25.4.1996, since the communication was received by respondent No. 1 on 2nd May, 1996, it cannot be said that the departmental proceeding was initiated while respondent No. 1 was in service. The submission proceeds on the assumption that till such time as the order initiating the departmental proceeding is served upon the concerned employee, it cannot be said that a departmental proceeding has been initiated. 10. It may be useful at this stage to notice rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules which is as follows : "43. (a) Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pension. The Provincial Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the Provincial Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of a pension under this rule, shall be final and conclusive. The decision of the Provincial Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of a pension under this rule, shall be final and conclusive. (b) 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 : Provided that (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment; (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government; (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made; (b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with subclause (ii) of clause (a); and (c) the Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation.For the purpose of the rule- (a) departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed, against the pensioner are issued to him or, if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date ; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted :- - (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal court; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the complaint is presented, or as the case may be, an application is made to a civil Court. 11. 11. It will appear from the Rule that the Government has reserved to itself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or found guilty of grave misconduct, since future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pension. Under rule 43 (b) the State Government has reserved to itself 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 the Government if the pensioner is found in a 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 reemployment after retirement. The explanation to the Rule provides that for the purpose of the rule, departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed, against the pensioner are issued to him, or if the Government Servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. It is, therefore, obvious that the initiation of a departmental proceeding for the purpose of the rule is the date on which the pensioner is placed under suspension, or the date when the charges framed against him are issued to him. The rule therefore, clearly implies that the service of the charges framed upon the pensioner is not very relevant, and what is significant is that the charges framed against him should be issued to him. I shall later consider this aspect of the matter since the question is not res integra and squarely covered by a decision of the Supreme Court of India. Proviso to rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules applies when a departmental proceeding was not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment. In case the pensioner was not proceeded against departmentally while in service, under the proviso a proceeding under rule 43 may be initiated against him with the sanction of the State Government subject to the condition that the proceeding shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. In case the pensioner was not proceeded against departmentally while in service, under the proviso a proceeding under rule 43 may be initiated against him with the sanction of the State Government subject to the condition that the proceeding shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. The proceeding if initiated after the superannuation of the pensioner must follow the procedure applicable to proceeding in which an order of dismissal from service may be passed. The same limitation is also prescribed for initiation of judicial proceeding. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the proviso to rule 43(b) because the case of the State is that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against respondent No. 1 while he was in service, and that proceeding was sought to be continued after his superannuation since it was not possible to conclude the proceeding while he was in service. The moot question which therefore, arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against respondent No. 1 while he was in service, so that the same could be continued for the purpose of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. 12. At the threshold I may notice the submission urged on behalf of respondent No. 1 that since the question involved in this appeal is a question which has been referred for consideration by a full bench, this Court should not consider that question in the instant appeal. It was submitted before us that the same learned Judge who has delivered the impugned judgment in another writ petition being CWJC No. 2061 of 1999 directed that the matter be placed before Hon ble the Chief Justice for placing the matter before a Full Bench. That order of the learned Judge is reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 1061 . We have perused the order of the learned Judge and we find that the learned Judge has not referred the matter for consideration by a Full Bench but has only observed that the matter requires consideration by a larger Bench and has accordingly, directed the matter to be placed before the Hon ble the Chief Justice for consideration and appropriate order. No order has yet been passed by the Chief Justice in that matter. 13. No order has yet been passed by the Chief Justice in that matter. 13. Under the Patna High Court Rules Chapter, V deals with the subject of reference to a Full Bench. The rules provide as follows : 1. Whenever a Division Bench desires and the Chief Justice consents that any case shall be referred to a Full Bench, or whenever in any case a Division Bench differs from any other Division Bench upon a point of law or usage having the force of law, such case shall be referred for decision by a Full Bench. 2. If the case is an appeal from an appellate decree the Bench shall state the point or points which they desire referred or upon which they differ from the decision of the former Division Bench, as the case may be, and shall refer the appeal for the final decision of a Full Bench. 3. If the case is an appeal from an original decree the question of law shall alone be referred, and a Full Bench shall return the case with an expression of its opinion upon the points of law or final adjudication by the Division Bench which referred it, and in case of necessity in consequence of the absence of any or either of the referring judges, for the ultimate decision of another Division Bench." 14. The Rules, as they are, do not provide for reference of a matter to a Full Bench by a Single Judge. It is only a Division Bench which may refer the matter to the Chief Justice and with his consent the case may be referred to a Full Bench. The practice followed in this Court is that whenever a Single Judge doubts the correctness of a decision by a Division Bench or a Larger Bench, he refers the matter to a Division Bench, and the Division Bench may, if satisfied, direct the matter to be placed before Hon ble the Chief Justice for consideration by a Full Bench. As we have noticed earlier, the learned Judge has only directed that the matter be placed before a Larger Bench, which means a Division Bench. As we have noticed earlier, the learned Judge has only directed that the matter be placed before a Larger Bench, which means a Division Bench. However, we find from the said order of the learned Judge that he has doubted the correctness of a Full Bench decision of this Court which had held that where a disciplinary proceeding had already been started, even if the person concerned attained the age of superannuation, the inquiry can be continued under rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules for the limited purpose of taking such action as is provided under the said rule even after such superannuation, and for that purpose no specific or express order of the Government is necessary. It would thus appear that the question referred for consideration by a Larger Bench is whether for the continuation of a disciplinary proceeding under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, it is necessary for the Government to pass a specific or express order for such continuation. 15. In the instant case that question does not arise for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case. We wish to express no opinion on the question referred for consideration to a Larger Bench, though the same is concluded by a binding precedent of a Full Bench of this Court. In the instant case the proceeding is said to have been initiated on 25.4.1996 by issuance of Annexure-12. The respondent No.1 superannuated from service on 30th of April, 1996. Thereafter an express order was passed by the order of the Governor on September 2,1997 continuing the said disciplinary proceeding for the purpose of action to be taken under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. It is, therefore, quite apparent that in the instant case there is in fact, a specific order for the continuation of the proceeding, and therefore the question whether in the absence of a specific order a proceeding under Rule 43(b) can be continued, does not arise for consideration in this case. 16. The next question which deserves consideration is whether the disciplinary proceeding was instituted while respondent No. 1 was in service within the meaning of that term under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that a departmental proceeding can be said to be initiated when the charges framed against the Government servant concerned are served upon him. Counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that a departmental proceeding can be said to be initiated when the charges framed against the Government servant concerned are served upon him. On the other hand, counsel for the State submitted that service of the charges upon the government servant concerned is of no significance in the context of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, because under explanation to rule 43(b), it has been clearly provided that departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have initiated when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him, or if the government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. The question then arises as to whether the charges framed against respondent No. 1 were issued to him before his superannuation. 17. Respondent No. 1 has himself annexed as Annexure-12, the resolution of the Government by which a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and an Inquiring Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. Annexure-12 which is the relevant resolution of the Government shows that the resolution along with its annexures, was despatched to respondent No. 1 on 25.4.1996 under memo No. 6-0016/86 dated 25.4.1996. Thus from Annexure-12 it appears that the resolution along with its enclosures including the charges framed was issued to respondent No. 1 on 25.4.1996, while he superannuated on 30th of April, 1996. 18. As to what is meant by issue of charge sheet has been considered by the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. H.C. Khurana. (AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1488). After considering the authorities on the subject, the Supreme Court laid down the principle in the following words : Issue of the charge-sheet in the context of a decision taken to initiate the disciplinary proceedings must mean, as it does, the framing of the charge-sheet and taking of the necessary action to despatch the charge-sheet to the employee to inform him of the charges framed against him requiring his explanation; and not also the further fact of service of the charge-sheet on the employee. It is so, because knowledge to the employee of the charges framed against him, on the basis of the decision taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings, does not form a part of the decision making process of the authorities to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, even if framing the charges forms a part of that process in certain situations............. It is so, because knowledge to the employee of the charges framed against him, on the basis of the decision taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings, does not form a part of the decision making process of the authorities to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, even if framing the charges forms a part of that process in certain situations............. The meaning of the word issued on which considerable stress was laid by learned Counsel for the respondent, has to be gathered from the context in which it is used. Meanings of the word issue given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary include to give exit to; to send forth, or allow to pass out; to let out;..... to give or send out authoritatively or officially; to send forth or deal out formally or publicly; to emit, put into circulation. The issue of a charge-sheet, therefore, means its despatch to the Government servant, and this act is complete the moment steps are taken for the purpose, by framing the charge-sheet and despatching it to the Government servant, the further fact of its actual service on the Government servant not being a necessary part of its requirement." 19. In the instant case, respondent No. 1 can not dispute the fact that the resolution initiating the departmental proceeding, with its enclosures, was despatched to him on 25.4.1996. No such plea was raised either before the learned Single Judge or before us because the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 proceeds on the basis that what was relevant was the service of the charge sheet upon respondent No. 1, and not its despatch. However, since a photo copy of the aforesaid resolution has been brought on record by respondent No. 1 himself which shows that the resolution along with its enclosures was despatched to him on 25.4.1996, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that in the instant case the departmental proceeding had been instituted against respondent No. 1 while he was in service, because the charges framed against him had been issued to him on 25.4.1996 while he superannuated from service on 30.4.1996. It, therefore, follows that since a departmental proceeding had already been initiated against respondent No. 1 while he was in service, the same could be continued for the purpose of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. It, therefore, follows that since a departmental proceeding had already been initiated against respondent No. 1 while he was in service, the same could be continued for the purpose of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The continuation of the proceeding in the instant case is by an express order Annexure-14 even though that was not necessary in view of several decisions of this Court including a Full Bench decision. The learned Judge, therefore, was in error in thinking and concluding that a fresh proceeding had been initiated under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules which related to an event which took place more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. This conclusion was based on the premise that the issuance of An-nexure-14 amounted to the initiation of a fresh proceeding which, as found, is not the case. 20. Counsel for respondent No. 1 then submitted thet even a disciplinary proceeding, instituted while respondent No. 1 was in service, cannot be continued even for the purpose of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension rules without extending the service of respondent No. 1, so as to prevent him from retirement. The submission is wholly misconceived. It is, no doubt, true that upon superannuation a government servant goes beyond the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Government, and therefore, even in a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him while he was in service, no punishment under the relevant rules can be imposed against him as a measure of punishment after his superannuation. In such a case if the Government really wishes to impose a punishment, it must extend his service so that the Government servant continues in government service when the order of punishment is passed. This principle however does not apply so far action under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is concerned. The aforesaid rule authorises the Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it, and ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government etc. Rule 43 by its very nature is not applicable to existing government servants, but must necessarily apply to retired government servants who have been granted a pension by the Government. Rule 43 by its very nature is not applicable to existing government servants, but must necessarily apply to retired government servants who have been granted a pension by the Government. The Bihar Pension Rules do not provide for the imposition of any punishment upon a Government servant, which are usually imposed if a government servant is found guilty of misconduct in a departmental proceeding, such as censure, reduction in rank, dismissal etc. The rule only enables the State Government to withdraw or withhold a pension or any part of it, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions under rule 43(b). The Bihar Pension Rules therefore operate in a different field, and specifically provide for continuance of a disciplinary proceeding, or even the initiation of a fresh departmental proceeding after the superannuation of the government servant concerned for the limited purpose envisaged under Rule 43(b). It therefore, follows that a proceeding under rule 43(b) may be initiated or continued even against a retired government servant because it relates to withholding or withdrawing of a pension or any part of it, and does not provide for the imposition of any punishment which is usually inflicted upon a government servant under relevant rules, if he is found guilty of misconduct in a departmental proceeding. 21. Moreover, there is nothing in rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, upon which reliance has been placed by counsel for respondent No. 1, which compels the Government to continue a Government servant in service if it wishes to continue a proceeding under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. It is no doubt, true that before November, 1970 Clause (f) of Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code provided as follows : "Notwithstanding anything contained in foregoing clauses, a Government servant under suspension on charge of misconduct shall not be required or permitted to retire on reaching the age of compulsory retirement, but shall be retained in service until the inquiry into the charge is concluded and a final order is passed thereon by the competent authority." However in November, 1970, the said clause was deleted, and rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, as it now stand, reads as follows : The date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the State Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing. 22 There is nothing in Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code which obliges the State Government to extend the services of a retiring Government servant. The Government may, in its discretion, grant an extension of service for reasons to be recorded in writing. If the services of the retiring government servant are not extended, he goes beyond the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Government and no punishment can be imposed against him on a finding of misconduct in a departmental proceeding. But that is not to say that a proceeding under rule 43(b), which relates to his pension, cannot be initiated or continued. The right to pension arises only after superannuation, and therefore rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules comes into operation after a government servant superannuates. Moreover, even clause (f) of Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code applies only to a government servant under suspension on charge of misconduct. It is no ones case that respondent No. 1 was under suspension when he superannuated from service. Therefore, even if rule 73(f) existed, if had no application to respondent No. 1. Certainly after its deletion, it cannot be applied to respondent No. 1. The submission therefore, urged on the basis of Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, must be rejected and it must be held that for the purpose of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, it is not obligatory for the State Government to extend the service of the concerned government servant. 23. I, therefore, hold that a departmental proceeding was instituted against respondent No. 1 when the resolution dated 25.4.1996 along with its enclosures containing the charges framed, was issued to him under memo dated 25.4.1996. Since respondent No. 1 superannuated after that date on 30th April, 1996, the proceeding initiated while he was in service could be continued by the Government for the purpose of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The proceeding was continued for the purpose of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules by an express order passed by the Government, An-nexure-14, dated September 2, 1997. The proceeding was continued for the purpose of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules by an express order passed by the Government, An-nexure-14, dated September 2, 1997. Respondent No. 1 having been found guilty of misconduct in the said proceeding, the Government was within its right in issuing the impugned order, An-nexure-18 under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. 24. In view of these findings, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Judge dated 26th July, 1999 is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 is dismissed. A.K.Ganguly, J. 25 I agree.