ORDER 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 6.12.1999 passed in CWJC. No. 179/1999(R), whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of punishment passed against the respondent-writ petitioner. The respondent was in the service of the Bihar State Electricity Board and superannuated on 31.7.1998. It appears that one day before superannuation i.e. 31.7.86 the appellant took a decision and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The said decision was communicated after three days of his retirement. It further appears that it has not been disputed that after retirement of the petitioner no action was initiated under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. On the basis of aforesaid decision the appellant proceed against the respondent and passed the impugned order of punishment by deducting a sum of Rs. 63,366/- from there trial dues. The learned single Judge relied upon the settled law that the departmental proceeding if initiated before retirement without taking recourse to the action under Rule 43(b), is not permissible and any order passed pursuant thereto is illegal. It was found that no proceeding under Section 43(b) was initiated against the respondent. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the impugned order of punishment was bad in law. 2. We have perused the entire records and found that neither the decision for initiation of departmental proceeding was communicated to the petitioner nor memo of charge was served upon the delinquent employee before his retirement rather simply a letter showing such decision was served upon the delinquent employee three days after his retirement. 3. From the impugned order of punishment dated 12.8.98 it further appears that there is serious error of record inasmuch neither the date of issuance of letter was correctly mentioned for the decision taken by the inquiry officer has been correctly appreciated in the said order. 4. Mr. V.P. Singh relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Shambhu Saran v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2000 (1) PLJR 665. In our opinion, the decision which is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 5. Mr. V.P. Singh has further submitted that the impugned order of punishment was passed for recovery the loss suffered by the Board. In our opinion, the decision which is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 5. Mr. V.P. Singh has further submitted that the impugned order of punishment was passed for recovery the loss suffered by the Board. In our opinion, the said submission is wholly misconceived inasmuch recovery of amount from the retiral benefits is much more than a punishment. 6. Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case, we are of the view that the appellant-Board in order to save the skin of the authorities have tried to initiate proceeding in a very irregular and illegal manner and passed the impugned order of punishment. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, right in holding that the order of punishment could not be sustained in law. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.