Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Saran, Chapra, contained in Memo No. 154 dated 5th September, 1998 (Annexure-16), whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs. 16,006.62 has been found to be recoverable from him. 2. Petitioner retired as Farm Assistant from Agriculture Department on 23-2-1994. A sum of Rs. 16,007.00 was deducted from his gratuity. He being aggrieved by it filed C.W.J.C. No. 13035 of 1996 in this Court. It appears that the said deduction was made under three different heads vide order passed by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Saran Division, Chapra without even affording any opportunity to him. This Court vide order dated 6-1-1998, contained in Annexure-12, quashed the order whereby deduction for the said amount was passed. The Court, however, directed that if the authorities want to deduct any amount then they should given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter will decided as to whether the said amount can be deducted or not. The Court further directed that if any amount is found due against the petitioner after determination the same should be deducted from his post-retirement benefit and disposed of the writ petition accordingly. Thereafter, the petitioner was given notice to appear and place his case. The petitioner made representation before the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Chapra and requested for supply of certain documents as contained in Annexure-14, but the same was never supplied to him nor it was produced before the authority while hearing the parties. Petitioner again sent reminder vide representation dated 17-8-1998, contained in Annexure-15, but the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer (Respondent No. 8) passed the impugned order without making available all the relevant documents asked for by the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that bare perusal of the impugned order would show that it is a cryptic one and no reason whatsoever has been assigned for deciding that a sum of Rs. 16,006.62 is recoverable from the petitioner. As such, the said order is fit to be quashed on this ground alone. He, further, submitted that the impugned order is also bad in law as no amount has been found to be recoverable on the charge of negligence of the petitioner in storing the grains, which was damaged during flood, on 14-8-1987. 16,006.62 is recoverable from the petitioner. As such, the said order is fit to be quashed on this ground alone. He, further, submitted that the impugned order is also bad in law as no amount has been found to be recoverable on the charge of negligence of the petitioner in storing the grains, which was damaged during flood, on 14-8-1987. it is not the case of the Respondents that any departmental proceeding while the petitioner was in service in terms of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or a proceeding in terms of Rule 43 or 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules was ever initiated after his retirement, and in which finding has been recorded. As such, the entire action for recovery on the face of the said Rules is bad in law. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 8. In the said counter-affidavit, it is stated that after receipt of the representation from the petitioner one Sri J.N. Singh S.M.S. Muzaffarpur was appointed as conducting officer for the inquiry. It is further stated that he has expressed in his report that the petitioner is responsible for the damage and requested the Joint Director, Agriculture, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur to realise the cost from him after receiving the loss report from the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer (East), Muzaffarpur. The said report has been annexed as Annexure-B. It is, thus, stated that on the request of the petitioner, inquiry was made and the report was submitted to the Joint Director, Agriculture, Muzaffarpur. Learned State Counsel has, thus, submitted that there is nothing wrong with the impugned order. He, however, has not been able to show that any proceeding either in terms of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, while the petitioner was in service was initiated with respect to the aforementioned charge or that after his retirement a proceeding was initiated in terms of Rule 43(b) or 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules for fixing responsibility upon the petitioner for the alleged damage of food-grains. Under such circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to uphold the validity of he impugned order (Annexure-16). 4. Under such circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to uphold the validity of he impugned order (Annexure-16). 4. It is by now well settled that after retirement of a Government servant the only course for either withholding or withdrawing pension or any part of it is open in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 43 and for revision of pension in terms of Rule 139 (c) of the Bihar Pension Rules for the pecuniary loss caused to the Government, and no other provision has been brought to the notice by the learned State Counsel wherein the sanctioning authority can make any deduction or recovery from the pensionary dues of a Government servant otherwise. Reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Sachidanand Singh V/s. State, reported in 1999(3) PLJR 513. Moreover, bare perusal of the impugned order shows that no reason whatsoever has been assigned for coming to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 16,006.62 is recoverable from the petitioner. It is by now well settled that the order rejecting or not accepting the representation/explanation not assigning any reason for decision is bad in law. Reference can be made to the decision of this Apex Court in the case of The Manager, Government Branch Press and Anr. V/s. D.B. Belliappa -- . 5. The Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill 8 Anr. V/s. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. , has held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reason, so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out, which is not permissible. The Apex Court in paragraph 8 of the said judgment has quoted from the earlier observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji -- as under: Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently gives by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. 6. Thus, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Writ application is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order is quashed. This Court is informed that the said amount has already been covered on 3-10-1996. Accordingly, this Courts directed the Respondents to refund the said amount by issuing necessary sanction order/authority slip within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.