JUDGMENT : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dated 5th July, 1999 passed in contempt proceedings arising out of Writ Petition No. 9990 of 1993 by which the High Court declared the Government Order dated 24th December, 1996 as illegal as it is in contradiction to the order dated 8th August, 1995 passed by the High Court in the said writ petition. 4. The short facts are, respondent No. I superannuated on 31st January, 1993 as Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. According to the appellants, his services were found unsatisfactory on account of certain punishments inflicted for the various omissions and commissions committed by him during the service tenure, i.e.; “Censor” for the year 1990-91, “Severe Censor” on 4th June, 1986, again “Censor” on 4th November, 1991, “Displeasure” on 30th March, 1991 and “Warning” on 13th March, 1991. The case is that he is also facing a criminal proceeding on account of taking of some fake supply of BA wire for Jalpapur Flood Protection works in the year 1985-86. In view of these facts, the Government decided to withhold 50% pension of the respondent No. 1 vide order No. 580 dated 10th November, 1993. Thus his pension was fixed at 50% vide order No. 466 dated 22th November, 1993. This order was passed under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Respondent No. 1 challenged this order by means of the aforesaid writ petition which was quashed by the High Court. The High Court held: “......the proceeding initiated under Rule 139 of the Bihar pension Rules and the order passed on 10.11.1993 is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to the payment of his pension in accordance with law. It is directed that the Government should sanction the pension forthwith and not later than six weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before respondent No. 3.” 5. The case of the appellants is, the aforesaid Government order which was quashed, was in respect of a solitary act of omission and commission committed by respondent No. 1 which could not be a final order under Rule 139 and thus it would not preclude State to pass fresh order with reference of other incidences. The case of the appellants is, the aforesaid Government order which was quashed, was in respect of a solitary act of omission and commission committed by respondent No. 1 which could not be a final order under Rule 139 and thus it would not preclude State to pass fresh order with reference of other incidences. In fact, thereafter the appellants proceeded to pass final pension order under the aforesaid Rule 139 (a) and (b). Before doing this, a show cause notice was issued to respondent No. 1 and after considering his reply, passed the order on 24th December, 1996 under which it again fixed his pension at 50%, on account of his aforesaid unsatisfactory service. This order led the respondent No. 1 to file the aforesaid contempt petition. The High Court held, this order dated 24th December, 1996 is contrary to the earlier order dated 8th August, 1995 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. It is against this order the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 6. Mr. B.B. Singh, Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits with vehemence, the State has full powers under Rule 139 to take into consideration the total period of service for arriving at conclusion, whether a person is entitled for full pension or a reduced pension. Further, the order passed is within the ambit and field of the said Rule 139. The submission is, the earlier order passed by the High Court, which is said to have been violated is confined to only one incidence hence, it cannot be construed a bar on the State Government to pass a fresh order under Rule. The submission is, the said writ petition was considering the respondent No. 1's case which fell within Explanation (b) and (i) of Rule 43B of the said Rule. 7. We heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties have taken us to the counter affidavit filed in the earlier Writ petition and other factual averment which we do not feel necessary to go into for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal. However, it is not in dispute that the first order passed by the High Court was also under Rule 139 of the aforesaid Rules, though it is true that it is confined to one incidence which occurred in the year 1984-85. 8. However, it is not in dispute that the first order passed by the High Court was also under Rule 139 of the aforesaid Rules, though it is true that it is confined to one incidence which occurred in the year 1984-85. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants, the High Court quashed the earlier Government order since it referred to an incidence of 1984-85, which was beyond four years. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits, since the power exercised by the State Government under Rule 139, was the subject matter under challenge in the earlier writ petition and the final order was passed after taking into account the entire service record of the respondent No. 1, hence, the submission on behalf of the State is not sustainable. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, so far exercising the powers under Rule 139, we find, once it is' admitted, the first order also was under Rule 139, we fail to understand as to how the State could exercise its power once again by taking into consideration some matter which was already on record when it was considering while passing the first order. The relevant portion of the Rule 139 is quoted hereunder: “139. (a) The full pension admissible under the Rules is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. (c) The State Government reserves to themselves the powers of revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. No such power shall however, be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, of any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed.” 10. No such power shall however, be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, of any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed.” 10. The power to be exercised by the State Government, at the time after the incumbent has superannuated, while fixing the pension, the full pension admissible under Rule is, where the service rendered has been approved under sub-Clause (b) and where service has been thoroughly satisfactory, if not the authority sanctioning the pension is authorised to reduce the amount of pension as it thinks fit and proper. In this case, we are not called upon to examine the meaning of the words “as it thinks fit” under the said rule. This Rule leaves no room of doubt that this power can be exercised only once while compounding the pension which could not be made piecemeal. It is open to the authority concerned to consider entire record of an incumbent to come to a conclusion in this regard. In the present case, the State Government has already exercised that power while reducing the pension of respondent No. I which was quashed by the High Court as aforesaid. The said quashing could not give a fresh right to the authorities to reconsider the same records afresh. An order has to be passed after taking into consideration the entire service record, it cannot take into consideration only a part of the service record, for passing an order under Rule 139 and passing another-after considering another part of the service record. Even if it has not taken into consideration, the entire record, cannot give fresh lease of right to pass an order afresh. Its failure to do so cannot infuse any additional power. The principle of constructive res-judicata is a very refined principle which is equally applicable, while exercising the power under the said Rule. The State was obliged to consider entire records, if it has not considered, as we have said it could not give a fresh right for passing another order. Its failure to do so cannot infuse any additional power. The principle of constructive res-judicata is a very refined principle which is equally applicable, while exercising the power under the said Rule. The State was obliged to consider entire records, if it has not considered, as we have said it could not give a fresh right for passing another order. For the said reason, we do not find any error committed by the High Court when it quashed the later order of the State Government, reducing the pension of respondent No. 1 by 50% again for the second time. 11. For the said reason, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, we make it clear, we are not deciding this appeal with reference to the ambit of Rule 139. We. also make it clear that as a consequence of this Order, respondent No. 1 will continue to receive the pension which he is receiving today. Accordingly, the order passed by the High Court is upheld. However, this is without prejudice to the right of the appellants to take such action against respondent No. 1 as is permissible in law after the conclusion of the criminal trial. 12. With the said observations, the present appeal is dismissed. Costs on the parties.