Judgment Nagendra Rai and S.K.Katriar JJ. 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court has been preferred with respect to the order dated 11-11-1999, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 2883 of 1999, {Basudeo Sinha V/s. State of Bihar), whereby the writ has been allowed and the impugned order dated 17-5-1995 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) has been set aside wherein 10% of the writ petitioners pension has been sought to be deducted in purported exercise of the power under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 2. The writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) was an Engineer in the service of the Bihar Government. A proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was initiated against him on 31-7-1992, while he was functioning as such. He was superannuated with effect from 31-7-1992. He then moved this Court by preferring CWJC No. 1421 of 1993, {Basudeo Sinha V/s. State of Bihar), which was disposed of by order dated 2-12-1993 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition), passed by a Division Bench, whereby the State Government was directed to issue sanction order with regard to payment of gratuity, leave encashment, etc. Insofar as the question of 10% of the unpaid pension was concerned, the petitioner was advised to approach the authorities after conclusion of the departmental proceeding. The departmental proceeding was concluded and the Enquiry Officer, submitted his report against the petitioner. Thereafter, the State Government served show-cause notice dated 23-3-1994 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition), informing him of the adverse findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, and was called upon to show cause as to why 10% of his pension be not permanently deducted under the Rules. The petitioner had shown cause by his representation dated 4-4-1994, (Annexure 10 to the writ petition). On a consideration of the same and other materials on record, the State Government passed the impugned resolution dated 17-5-1995 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition), whereby 10% of the petitioners pension under Rule 139 of the Rules has been directed to be deducted permanently. On a consideration of the same and other materials on record, the State Government passed the impugned resolution dated 17-5-1995 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition), whereby 10% of the petitioners pension under Rule 139 of the Rules has been directed to be deducted permanently. The same was challenged by preferring the aforesaid CWJC No. 2883 of 1999, which has been allowed by order dated 11-11-1999, on the sole ground that no proceeding under the Rules had been initiated after the petitioner superannuated from service, and has consequently set aside the impugned order and directed for payment of arrears of pension. The writ petition is confined to this part of the order only. The State of Bihar has appealed. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that law is well settled that if a disciplinary proceeding has already been initiated, while the employee was still in service, then a fresh proceeding under the Rules is not required to be initiated after the employee has superannuated and the previous proceeding gets converted to one under the Bihar Pension Rules automatically. 4. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent has advanced strenuous arguments in support of the order on the writ petition. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, we respectfully express our inability to agree with the order on the writ petition. We agree with the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant-State of Bihar that law is well settled that if disciplinary proceeding had already been initiated while the employee was in service, then the same automatically gets converted, into proceedings under the Rules without the necessity of initiating a fresh proceeding under the Rules. It was so laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shambhu Sharan V/s. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) PUR 665. Following the same, a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (S.K. Katriar, J.) was a member, held in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment reported in 2000 (4) PLJR 459 (State of Bihar V/s. Bipin Bihari Prasad), as follows: 5. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants must prevail. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants must prevail. Learned Government Pleader rightly relied on the aforesaid Full Bench judgment, which lays down to the effect that in a case where a disciplinary proceeding had already been started while the employee was in service, even if the person concerned attains the age of superannuation, the inquiry may be continued under Rule 43 of the Pension Rules, for the limited purpose of taking such action as provided under the said Rules even after such superannuation and for that purpose, no specific or express order of the Government is necessary. It appears that the judgment of the Full Bench was not brought to the notice of the Hon ble Single Judge. In the conspectus of the entire proceeding, we are of the view that the aforesaid show-cause notice dated 12-5-1989 (Annexure 1), was initiated in terms of Rule 55-A, which was a proceeding for minor penalty, which has had to be disposed of on the basis of representation. No specific charges are required to be framed and proved in a departmental proceeding with respect to minor penalty. In that view of the matter, the ratio of the aforesaid Full Bench judgment applies on all fours to the present case. The departmental proceeding having been initiated while respondent No. 1 was still in service, the same gets converted into one under Rule 43 of the Pension Rules by automatic operation of law, and a formal order of conversion does not in any way adversely affect the validity of the latter. However, as a measure of abundant precaution, the State Government had issued the order dated 6-1-1999 (Annexure 6), converting the departmental proceeding into one under Rule 43 of the Pension Rules. We have no manner of doubt that in view of the legal position that such a formal order was not required to be issued but in fact was issued, does not render conversion of the proceeding bad in law. In that view of the mater, we disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules was bad in law, and conclude that the same was valid. 6. In that view of the mater, we disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules was bad in law, and conclude that the same was valid. 6. We would also like to notice the judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, , (State of Biharv. Mohd. Idris Ansari)(Supreme Court Section). It is manifest from a plain reading of the judgment that their Lordships were considering the validity of proceeding under the Pension Rules initiated after superannuation of the employee concerned. The judgment is an authority on the scope and ambit of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the Pension Rules, and with respect to proceedings started thereunder after superannuation of the employee. On the contrary, we have already held hereinabove that the disciplinary proceeding against respondent No. 1 in the present case had been initiated while he was in service. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Idris Ansari (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the issue is entirely covered by the aforesaid Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shambhu Sharan V/s. State of Bihar. 6. The same view has been expressed by one of us (Nagendra Rai, J.), sitting singly in his judgment reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 745 (Braj Kishore Prasad Srivastava V/s. BSEB) 7. In the present case, proceeding had already been initiated against the writ petitioner while he was still in service and he superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government while functioning as Executive Engineer on 31-7-1992. The proceeding continued and the charges were held to have been proved. After his superannuation, no formal order was passed initiating proceeding against the petitioner under the Rules. We have no doubt in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court that the same was not needed and the proceeding started against the petitioner under Rule 55 of the C.C.S. Rules got automatically converted into proceeding under the Rules. After his superannuation, no formal order was passed initiating proceeding against the petitioner under the Rules. We have no doubt in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court that the same was not needed and the proceeding started against the petitioner under Rule 55 of the C.C.S. Rules got automatically converted into proceeding under the Rules. After the inquiry report was submitted, the authorities had issued the aforesaid show cause dated 23-3-1994, (Annexure 9 to the writ petition), informing him of the findings of the Inquiry Officer and as to why 10% of his pension under the Rules be not permanently deducted. The petitioner had shown cause by his letter dated 4-4-1994, (Annexure 10 to the writ petition), on a consideration of which and other materials on record, the impugned order has been passed. We, have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding on the strength of the aforesaid judgments of this Court that the impugned order does not suffer from the legal infirmity pointed out by the writ petition. We, therefore, respectfully disagree with the order of the learned Single Judge and. set aside this part of his order, and uphold the impugned order 17-5-1995, (Annexure 11 to the writ petition). 8. As to the second part of the order on the writ petition is concerned, namely, the question relating to payment of the amount of the GPF, with up-to-date statutory interest and the balance of Rs. 5,000.00 towards gratuity, we agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 17-5-19.95, (Annexure 1) to the writ petition is hereby upheld.