Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition for quashing departmental proceeding and also for payment of retrial dues with interest. 2. The petitioner entered in the service of Bihar State Electricity Board as Asst. Electrical Engineer in April, 1960. He was promoted time to time. In the year 1989, he was promoted to the post of General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer. He served the Board as General Manage-cum-Chief Engineer in Kosi Area Electricity Board, Saharsa, Mithila Area Electricity Board, Darbhsnga and Dhanbad Area Electricity Board, Dhanbad and thereafter he was posted as Chief Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking, Patna from where he retired from the service on 30-6-1996. After retirement 90% pension was sanctioned on 12-6-1997. However, on 24-2-1998 a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, Charge-sheet dated 24-2-1998, Annexure-1, was furnished to the petitioner with respect to omission and Commission of mis-conduct for the period August 1992 to October 1994 while he was posted at Dhanbad. The petitioner filed written statement raising objection with regard to maintainability of departmental proceeding on 14-3-1993, Annexure-2. The Enquiry Officer sent written statement to the Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board stating the question raised by the petitioner and requested for his opinion on the question raised by the petitioner, Annexure-3. The Joint Secretary sent letter to the Inquiry Officer that grievance of the petitioner was examined and after due consideration it has been found that initiation of departmental proceeding against him vide Boards resolution No. 212 dated 24-2-1998 is legally in order. He was, therefore, requested to go shead with the proceeding and submit report, Annexure-3/A. the Inquiry Officer, thereafter, did not proceed with the inquiry entrusted to him and submitted report that departmental proceeding against the petitions was not maintainable, Annexure-4, dated 2953-1999. The disciplinary authority after examining pros and cons of the report did not accept the inquiry report and came to the conclusion that inquiry report was perfunctory and inquiry was entrusted to Sri A.U Bhatt, Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Annexure-5 dated 26-8-1999. The petitioner again filed objection to the initiation of departmental proceeding, Annexure-6. The petitioner thereafter, has filed the writ petition for quashing departmental proceeding against him and for issue of direction for payment of retirement benefits. 3. The petitioner admittedly was in the service of the State Electricity Board. He retired on 30-6-1996. The petitioner again filed objection to the initiation of departmental proceeding, Annexure-6. The petitioner thereafter, has filed the writ petition for quashing departmental proceeding against him and for issue of direction for payment of retirement benefits. 3. The petitioner admittedly was in the service of the State Electricity Board. He retired on 30-6-1996. The departmental proceeding was admittedly initiated on 24-2-1998 with respect to charge for the period August 1992 to October 1994 i.e. after superannuation of the petitioner. The question has been raised in this case as to whether departmental proceeding can be initiated after retirement of the employee or not. It is an admitted position that respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board has adopted Bihar Pension Rules for its employees. The said fact has been noticed in the case of Braj Kishore Prasad Shrivastava V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board 1998 (2) PLJR 744 and it has been held that Bihar Pension, rules have been accepted by the Board and are applicable to Boards employees except those who are specifically exempted by the orders passed by the Board form time to time. Thus, it is obviously that Bihar Pension Rules are applicable in the case of petitioner. Rule 43 is relevant for the purpose which reads as follows: (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. (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 proceedings 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. 4. 4. From the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the Government has power to withhold or withdraw the pension or any part of it permanently or for specified period if the employee is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave mis-conduct. The Government has also right of recovery from the pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if the pensioner is found in departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave mis-conduct or negligence during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. However, condition has been put that in case departmental proceeding was not initiated while the Government employee was in service or during re-employment the same shall not be initiated without sanction of the Government and for an event which took place more than four years before initiation of such proceedings. Therefore, it is evident that a proceeding can be initiated under Rule 43 after retirement subject to the condition as state above. In the case of State of Bihar and Ors. V/s. Md. Idris Ansari (1999) 3 Suppl. S.C.C. 56, the Apex Court has held that under Rule 43(b) a proceeding can be initiated if the mis-conduct is committed within four years prior to initiation of the proceeding. In the instant case it has already been stated that proceeding was initiated with respect to mis-conduct for the period August 1992 to October 1994 while he was posted at Dhanbad on 24-2-1998. Therefore, it can safely be said that the departmental proceeding can be initiated after retirement but for the event for the period within four years form the date of initiation of the proceeding and not for event beyond four years from the date of initiation of the proceeding and as such the proceeding against the petitioner for events within four years from the date of initiation of the proceeding is valid in law and the respondents can proceed with the proceeding for the aforesaid period as indicated above. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon a decision in the case of C.L. Verma V/s. State of M.P. and Anr. -- , wherein the order of dismissal was admittedly issued after attaining the age of 58 years. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon a decision in the case of C.L. Verma V/s. State of M.P. and Anr. -- , wherein the order of dismissal was admittedly issued after attaining the age of 58 years. The stand of the employer was that executive instruction was issued that the date of superannuation was extended to the last date of the month and before last date of month the order of dismissal was passed. The Apex Court held that administrative instruction cannot compete with a statutory rule and the rule shall prevail and accordingly held that order of dismissal passed after attaining the age of 58 years is bad in law. The case has no application in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as no such question is involved in the case. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision in the case of Bhagirathi Jena V/s. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors. -- . In the aforesaid case, the petitioner was an employee of the Corporation. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated on 22-7-1992 under Regulation 44 of Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975. The disciplinary proceeding was not concluded before the date the employee superannuated i.e. on 30-6-1995. However, his retiral benefit had been reduced. The Apex Court held that there was no provision for reduction in retrial benefit nor there was any provision for conducting disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the employee. Once the appellant retired from the service there was no authority vested in the Corporation or continuing the departmental proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in retrial benefit. In absence of such authority it must be held that enquiry had lapsed and the employee was entitled to full retrial benefit of retirement. 7. It has already been stated that proceeding can be initiated under Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules after retirement subject to the limitation that the event must have taken place within four years from the date of initiation of the proceeding. In the above mentioned case there was no such provision and as such aforesaid decision is of no held to the petitioner. 8. In the above mentioned case there was no such provision and as such aforesaid decision is of no held to the petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that since inquiry officer submitted report to the disciplinary authority that the departmental proceeding is not maintainable, the order appointing a different person as enquiry officer and directing to proceed with the enquiry is bad in law. In this regard it would not be out of place to mention that the inquiry officer submitted report without proceeding with the merit of the charge saying that departmental proceeding is not maintainable. Therefore, it is evident that such report is not on the question of charge. More-over, disciplinary authority has right to accept the report or refuse to accept the report, In the instant case on submission of report by the inquiry officer the disciplinary authority did not accept the report and appointed different person as enquiry officer and directed to proceed with the proceeding which is not at all against the provision of law as the disciplinary authority has all right to accept or not to accept the report. Moreover, in fact no proceeding was taken up on the charges levelled against the delinquent rather report was submitted merely on the ground that it was not maintainable though it was maintainable as discussed above. Therefore, in no way it can be said that order of the disciplinary authority is bad in law. 9. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, it is evident that entire proceeding against the petitioner cannot be held at be illegal, rather the proceeding for the events within four years as provided under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is legal and the authority had power to initiate such proceeding even after retirement for the purpose of reduction in the retirement benefit. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the light of findings as indicated above.