Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and its officials. 2. Petitioner is a retired Block Supply Officer, an employee of the State Government who appears to have served for several years under the respondent Corporation. Initially prayer in the writ petition was to direct the concerned authorities to release the pension of the petitioner due since May 1999 at the rate of Rs. 1608 per month as per pension payment order no. 286946 dated 22.2.1999. He had also claimed a relief against the respondent Corporation asking for a direction to dispose of petitioners repesentation regarding allegation of shortage of foodgrains while petitioner was in the service under the Corporation. Subsequently through an amendment petition petitioner has sought to challenge orders and letters contained in Annexures 6 and 7 Annexure-6 is a letter dated 19.12.1998 of Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar in the Department of Food Supply and Commerce addressed to the Accountant General, Bihar on the subject of payment of pension and gratuity to the petitioner. A copy of the said letter was addressed to Managing Director of the Corporation that there was an alleged due of Rs. 5794.31 paise which petitioner had deposited in January 1994. The amount of interest on the said amount as may be recoverable from the petitioner was directed to be communicated to the Accountant General, Bihar so that after necessary deduction the payable pension/gratuity should be paid. Annexure-7 is a letter dated 7.2.2000 from an official of the Corporation addressed to the Accountant General, Bihar through which the recoverable amount of interest has been communicated to be Rs. 46012.08 paise. A request was made to the AG, Bihar to deduct the said amount from money payable to petitioner and remit the same to the Corporation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Corporation to realise from the petitioner the aforesaid amount of Rs. 46012.08 paise on three grounds. Firstly, it has been submitted that the alleged shortage of foodgrains worth Rs. 5754.31 paise related to period prior to 1987. According to petitioner, the allegation was incorrect and at best he could be saddled only with a shortage worth Rs. 46012.08 paise on three grounds. Firstly, it has been submitted that the alleged shortage of foodgrains worth Rs. 5754.31 paise related to period prior to 1987. According to petitioner, the allegation was incorrect and at best he could be saddled only with a shortage worth Rs. 941.35 paise and hence, as soon as petitioner came to know of the allegation of shortage he submitted a representation before respondent no.2, the District Manager of the Corporation at Rohtas, Sasaram. No action was taken on such representation or on a reminder representation submitted in July 1991 (Annexure-l).Thus, according to petitioner, since no order was communicated to him on his representation relating to alleged shortage till he retired on 31.1.1997 hence it must be presumed that the Corporation accepted the petitioners contention that there was no shortage recoverable from the petitioner. Secondly, it was submitted that no proceeding of any kind was initiated against the petitioner ever and hence on charges or allegation of shortage during his tenure, no recovery can be made from his retiral benefits in absence of any proceeding permissible under the Bihar Pension Rules. Lastly, it was submitted that as per Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules any proceeding for making recovery from pension is permissible only if the allegations relate to an event within four years of retirement and in the present case since more than four years have lapsed since petitioners retirement hence no proceeding can be initiated for recovery from his pension and, therefore, the orders or directions authorising such recovery as contained in Annexures 6 and 7 are fit be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that petitioner has already deposited voluntarily the alleged shortage of Rs. 5754.31 paise in January 1994 as is apparent from Annexure-2, a receipt issued by the Corporation. Hence, there is no illegality in demanding an interest over such dues on account of shortage at the rate fixed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation as per their decision in the 100th meeting. Thus, the Corporation has not relied upon any decision against the petitioner in any proceeding or by any competent court for realisation of alleged shortage, rather it has relied upon voluntary action of the petitioner in depositing the alleged shortage of Rs. 5754.31 paise. Thus, the Corporation has not relied upon any decision against the petitioner in any proceeding or by any competent court for realisation of alleged shortage, rather it has relied upon voluntary action of the petitioner in depositing the alleged shortage of Rs. 5754.31 paise. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had paid the amount of alleged shortage under compulsion because he was due to retire in January 1997 and he did not want that payment of his pensionary benefits be disturbed due to such claim of the Corporation although petitioners representation had not been disposed of. The representation of the petitioner dated 20.1.2000 as contained in Annexure-5 also supports the aforesaid stand. In the said representation petitioner has referred to his earlier representation and owned liability to pay Rs. 941.35 paise as losses at Jakki Bigha, Dehri-on-Sone. In fact, through Annexure-5 he volunteered that on the said amount he was prepared to deposit even interest which may be chargeable as per rules of the Corporation. Such offer was made because petitioner was facing hardship due to nonpayment of pension since May 1999 as mentioned in Annexure-5 itself. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is not possible to accept the plea of the Corporation that petitioner had admitted the entire claims of shortage. On the basis of alleged admission the Corporation cannot be permitted to justify demand for interest over alleged shortage. From unrebutted materials on record it is found that petitioner admitted only a shortage of Rs. 941.35 paise in Annexure-1, his representation of the year 1991 as well as in Annexure-5, the representation of the year 2000. It appears that such shortage was demanded through letter dated 21.6.1980 and since petitioner deposited a larger amount of Rs. 5754.31 paise on 31.1.1994, clearly he has deposited more than what he admitted even if interest be permitted in favour of the Corporation at any reasonable rate. Hence, no demand of interest can be justified from the petitioner on the basis of alleged admission. So far as interest on the basis of resolution of the Board of Directors is concerned, such resolution cannot saddle any employee with a consolidated amount of damages on account of shortage in foodgrains in a store or godown under charge of such an employee. So far as interest on the basis of resolution of the Board of Directors is concerned, such resolution cannot saddle any employee with a consolidated amount of damages on account of shortage in foodgrains in a store or godown under charge of such an employee. The Board of Directors can take only policy decision and may fix rate of interest chargeable over a lawfully determined amount of dues or liability against an employee. The liability or damages can be ascertained only in accordance with procedure known to law. In case of employees/retired employees such procedure will be governed by service conditions and rules including pension rules. In case of petitioner the amount of damages or loss could have been determined either in an earlier concluded departmental proceeding or through a judgment or decree of a competent court. Admittedly, there is no such determination, decree or order. A proceeding under the Pension Rules cannot now be initiated in view of bar of four years under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Hence, the impugned orders contained in Annexures 6 and 7 seeking to recover an amount of Rs. 46012.08 paise from the pension/gratuity of the petitioner are against law and are, therefore, quashed. The concerned authorities are now directed to pay the pension and gratuity of the petitioner including arrears as per authority issued by Accountant General, Bihar without any delay and in any case within two months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.