Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition prayer is for quashing of the order, contained in Memo No. 542 dated 3-6-1999 which the petitioner has been awarded with punishment of deduction of 50% from his pension. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner retired from the post of Managing Director of District Rural Development Authority, Purnea on 31-3-1983. He filed his papers for release of pensionary benefits on 4-5-1983 arid successor in office of the petitioner on 28-12-1983 issued no dues certificate vide Annexure-2. However, when the pension was not released, he filed representation on 24-6-1985. Later, on 12-12-1985 a show-cause notice purporting to be under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was issued vide Annexure-3. The Director, Agriculture (Administration) was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On 29th January, 1986 the Director, Agriculture asked the petitioner to submit his show-cause within seven days vide Annexure-4. It is claimed that the petitioner asked for certain papers which were not supplied and thus on 3-5-1986 vide Annexure-6 submitted his show-cause though papers were not supplied and further requested for supply of papers, details of which were attached to it. On 1-8-1986 the petitioner vide Annexure-7 challenged the maintainability of the proceeding itself and reiterated for release of his pensionary dues. On 29-9-1986 the Enquiry Officer vide Annexure-8 rejected his said objection and required the petitioner as well as the State Government to produce their evidence. Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order and the order dated 12-12-1985 (Annexure-3) filed C.W.J.C. No. 5916 of 1986 in this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 23-4-1987 (Annexure-9). The Court, however, directed the concerned authorities to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months. The State Government vide notification dated 15th May, 1987, contained in Annexure-10 directed that the said proceeding be treated as a proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. It appears that thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted report and the State Government vide order dated 23-5-1988 held the petitioner guilty and communicated its decision to the Director, Agriculture for deduction of 50% from his pension. This order is purported to have been passed in exercise of power under Rule 43 (b) with consent of Bihar Public Service Commission. It appears that thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted report and the State Government vide order dated 23-5-1988 held the petitioner guilty and communicated its decision to the Director, Agriculture for deduction of 50% from his pension. This order is purported to have been passed in exercise of power under Rule 43 (b) with consent of Bihar Public Service Commission. On 5-12-1992 only provident fund was released, but according to the petitioner without any interest after withholding it for about 10 years 8 months. Since the copy of the enquiry report was not made available to him, he made a representation on 3-5-1993 in writing, in reply to which the Under Secretary vide Annexure-12 asked him to copy the enquiry report kept in his office or can get copy on payment of costs for the same. However, a copy of the enquiry report dated 26-6-1987 has been annexed as Annexure-13. On 24th May, 1993 the Respondents issued an order to pay pension at the rate of Rs. 1,000.00 per month with effect from 1-4-1983 and provisional gratuity to the petitioner vide Annexure-14, but the Accountant General vide Annexure-15 issued payment order for Rs. 447.00 per month and Rs. 29,533.95 for provisional D.C.R.G. However, vide order dated 28-6-1993, contained in Annexure-16 the State Government issued a clarification according approval for payment of his gratuity. The petitioner challenged the validity of the initial order of punishment dated 23-5-1988 and the decision dated 24-5-1993 to deduct 50% pension and the authority slip issued in pursuance thereto and also sought for direction to the Respondents to pay full pension to the petitioner with effect from 1-4-1983 in C.W.J.C. No. 12059 of 1993. The said writ petition was finally allowed by this Court on 25th July, 1997 vide judgment and order contained in Annexure-17 and quashed the initial order of punishment dated 23-5-1988 and the aforementioned decision dated 24-5-1993 on the ground that the copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner much after passing of the order of punishment and as such, it cannot be held that such furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report was in compliance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. This Court further directed the disciplinary authority to hear the petitioner afresh and pass an order in accordance with law and decide the matter expeditiously. This Court further directed the disciplinary authority to hear the petitioner afresh and pass an order in accordance with law and decide the matter expeditiously. Petitioner, thereafter on 23-8-1997 filed a detailed representation before the Disciplinary Authority enclosing the copy of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. The State Government entrusted the Additional Secretary, Agriculture Department for rehearing and the Additional Secretary submitted his report and finally on consideration of the same the impugned order (Annexure-1) has been passed by which petitioner has been awarded with the punishment of deduction of 50% from his pension. 3. According to the petitioner despite direction of this Court given in the earlier writ petition, he was neither heard nor provided with opportunity to place his case inasmuch as no second show-cause was served on him asking him to submit his defence before the impugned order was passed. The petitioner requested the Respondents to supply the enquiry report submitted by the Additional Secretary after the judgment of this Court, but the same was not supplied. His contention is that the impugned order besides being in violation of the principles of natural justice, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, perverse so much so that the Respondents have not even considered the contentions and important points raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 23rd August, 1997 either in the enquiry report or in the impugned order awarding punishment, which according to the judgment of this Court on remand was to be considered on merits afresh. Besides this, proceeding purporting to be under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, in fact, was started on 15-5-1987 vide Annexure-10 in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the institution, and as such the proceeding itself was illegal and bad in law. 4. Two counter-affidavits have been fiied;one on behalf of Accountant General (Respondent No.4) and the other on behalf of Secretary, Agriculture Department (Respondent No. 1). In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1, it has been stated that the resolution for starting departmental proceeding was issued on 12-12-1985 i.e. within two years nine months only after the retirement of the petitioner and it was the second notification of correction which was issued on 15-5-1987. Hence, the proceeding initiated under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is justified. Hence, the proceeding initiated under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is justified. It has been further stated that in compliance of the order of this Court, contained ,in Annexure-17 the report of Enquiry Officer was reviewed taking into consideration the full facts provided by the petitioner and it was decided to uphold the deduction of 50% from his pension in accordance with the Rules and, thus, the impugned order (Annexure-1) was passed. It is alleged that there were mainly five allegations against the petitioner and after receiving the enquiry report it was proved that without assessing the exact demand of various types of loan forms and application forms, he ordered for printing on his own level keeping in dark the then Chairman and Deputy Chairman, i.e. District Magistrate and the D.D.C. of the concerned district. According to the said Respondents, the petitioner, fixed the rate of printing not by calling fresh tender and also issued cheques and kept the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the D.R.D.A. Purnea in dark till last. It is stated that petitioner was given full opportunity to show cause and that the enquiry report was reviewed and the petitioners submissions was take into account for review and after hearing htm and considering all materials on records including his explanation final notification No. 542 dated 3-6-1999 was passed. 5. In reply, the petitioner has reiterated that the departmental proceeding under Rule 43 (b) was initiated on 15-6-1987 (Annexure-10) whereas he retired from service on 31-3-1983 and, therefore, the proceeding is barred by limitation fixed underthe said provision and is fit to be dropped. He has also denied of furnishing of adequate opportunity to him to defend the case. It is also stated that in course of enquiry the Presenting Officer himself acted as witness and whole proceeding and the enquiry report was absolutely illegal land biased one. He has asserted that he has not committed any irregularity as alleged by the Respondents. It is stated that the Government vide letter dated 17th May, 1980 has very categorically stated that all the forms should be printed at once and this defence was taken by the petitioner is course of enquiry, but the same has not been considered. He has reiterated that before passing the impugned order he was not given opportunity of hearing as was directed by this Court. 6. He has reiterated that before passing the impugned order he was not given opportunity of hearing as was directed by this Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the entire proceeding was conducted in a most cavalier manner inasmuch as the petitioner was denied of reasonable opportunity so much so that he was not even supplied with relevant documents and also denied of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses about which he raised his grievance in his letter/representation dated 23-8-1997 (Annexure-18) filed after disposal of his earlier writ petition on 25-7-1997. It is also contended that the impugned order is not based on any evidence and while passing the same the disciplinary authority has not considered the explanation and the materials brought on record by the petitioner. It is contended that besides the impugned order is vitiated on account of the fact that the disciplinary authority has committed the same illegality in not supplying with the enquiry report submitted by the Additional Secretary before passing the impugned order on account of which earlier order was quashed by this Court by judgment and order dated 25th July, 1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12059 of 1993, contained in Annexure-17, it is also fit to be quashed on the sole ground that the order of this Court given in the earlier writ petition to afford the petitioner opportunity of hearing has not been complied as is evident from the impugned order itself. Mr. Kanth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also contended that the Respondents are not legally justified in issuing the notification, contained in Annexure-10 for treating the earlier order initiating the proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as a proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules as by then it has already become barred under Sub-clause (if) of Clause(a) of proviso to Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. 7. Learned-Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the Government vide notification dated 15th May, 1987, contained in Annexure-10 has simply corrected the error committed in the resolution dated 12th December, 1985 (Annexure-3) in mentioning of the provision under which the proceeding has been initiated. 7. Learned-Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the Government vide notification dated 15th May, 1987, contained in Annexure-10 has simply corrected the error committed in the resolution dated 12th December, 1985 (Annexure-3) in mentioning of the provision under which the proceeding has been initiated. There can be no doubt that after retirement of the petitioner no proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civif Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules can be initiated and the only action permissible is either under Rule 43 or Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. The State Government realising the error committed earlier in issuing the resolution dated 12th December, 1985 (Annexure-3) which was well within four years of rider as provided in Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of proviso to Rule 43 (b) has simply corrected the same by Annexure-10 and thus according to him the proceeding on that account cannot be vitiated. This Court finds substance in the submission of the Iearned Counsel for the State on the question that the proceeding is not barred under the provision contained in Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of provison to-Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. It is by now well settled that the wrong labelling of the provision does not vitiate the order if passed by an authority within his power. It is not in dispute that when the Government resolution (Annexure-3) was passed the proceeding was covered by the said provision and by Annexure-10 the State Government has simply corrected it error and not that the proceeding itself was initiated afresh or any new charge on which the said rider clause can be said to be at all attracted was found. Learned Counsel for the State, however, has not been able to defend the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing despite the order of this Court passed in C.W.J .C. No. 12059 of 1993 as is evident from paragraph 3 of the impugned order itself, from which it appears that only Additional Secretary who was entrusted with fresh enquiry gave him hearing and the disciplinary authority did not give him opportunity of hearing afresh as was directed by this Court in the judgment and order passed in the earlier writ petition, contained in Annexure-17. Moreover, this Court finds that the objections raised by the petitioner in Annexure-18 on remand of the matter to the disciplinary authority by this Court have also not been considered. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order contained in Annexure-1 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for passing fresh order after giving fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in compliance of the earlier judgment/order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12059 of 1993, contained in Annexure-17. As the matter has already been quite delayed on account of fault of the authority, this Court directs for its disposal positively within two months of the receipt/production of a copy of this judgment, failing which the concerned authority shall not draw his salary and other allowances till the order is complied and shall also be liable to pay cost of Rs. 1,000.00 to the petitioner from his pocket. Petitioner shall produce copy of this judgment before the concerned authority upon which the concerned authority on the same date shall fix the date and time for hearing of the petitioner and finally dispose of the matter within the aforesaid time. 9. Having regard to the fact that the matter requires reconsideration by the State Government on giving fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, this Court has not gone into merit of other contentions raised on his behalf and the disciplinary authority shall consider them and dispose it of in accordance with law.