Judgment Sharma, J.-Petitioner was employed as Nazir in Sub-divisional Nazarat, Daltonganj and retired from service on 30.4.1988. 2. While in service, on 19.1.1965 he was placed under suspension (Annexure 1) with retrospective effect from 26.12.1964, on the charge of embezzlement of money. 3. A criminal case under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was also filed against him, wherein he was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. However, in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1967, his conviction and sentence aforesaid was set aside on the ground that the charge against him was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and he was acquitted on 30.1.1971. 4. On 10.7.1971 a departmental proceeding was initiated against him wherein five charges were framed (Annexure 2). The Additional Collector, Palamu, who was appointed the enquiry officer, submitted the report (Annexure 3) on 31.10.1981 to the Deputy Commissioner. On 27.3.1982 the petitioner's suspension was revoked and after his retirement on 30.4.1988, the Deputy Commissioner, the Respondent no. 3 passed order of punishment against him on 16.6.1988 (Annexure 4). Consequent upon the said punishment, a sum of Rs. 10,214.12 paise was deducted from retiral benefits of petitioner on 9.2.1989. The petitioner filed statutory appeal which was rejected on 25.9.1993 (Annexure 5). Petitioner has challenged the orders (Annexures 4 and 5) in the present writ application. 5. Mr. Amareshwar Sahay, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the petitioner's superannuation on 30.4.1988, the entire departmental proceeding automatically came to an end and as such the impugned order (Annexure 4) is illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. Mr. Sahay further submitted that in the enquiry report, Annexure 3 the petitioner was not found guilty and the charges levelled against him were not proved and as such the Deputy Commissioner should not have punished him without giving an opportunity of hearing. Mr. Sahay, in this regard relied upon a decision of the apex Court in Punjab National Bank and others versus Kunj Bihari Mishra [ (1998) 7 SCC 84 ], wherein it was held that whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiry authority, then before it records its own findings on the charges, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer. 7. Mr. Modi, G.P.1, on the other hand, placed reliance on a Full Bench decision in Shambhu Saran versus The State of Bihar and others [ 2000(1) PLJR 665 ], wherein the reference was answered as under : "In a case where a disciplinary proceeding has already been started, even if the person concerned attains the age of superannuation, the enquiry may be continued under rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 for the limited purpose of taking such action as provided under the said Rule even after such superannuation and for that purpose no specific or express order of the Government is necessary." 8. As a matter of fact, the enquiry officer in last paragraph of his report dated 31.10.1981 (Annexure 3) suggested the petitioner to furnish account for the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,214.12 paise, which he could not do. He failed to give account for the aforesaid sum and it cannot be said that he was innocent in dealing with the Public/Government money. He could not have been discharged/relieved from his liability which accrued upon him during the period of his service. The spirit of giving pension to the Government employees is to given financial help for the service rendered by him during his service period, honestly. 9. It is true that in the Nazir's report the petitioner was said to have defalcated a sum of Rs. 10,214.18 paise, whereas in the draft charge a sum of Rs. 10,214.12 paise was shown, but the difference of six paise shall have no bearing on the charge levelled against him. 10. In the present case by impugned order (Annexure 4) the petitioner was not awarded any punishment-major or minor, like dismissal or removal from service or withholding of increment etc. which would have contemplated that he was still in service. 10,214.12 paise was shown, but the difference of six paise shall have no bearing on the charge levelled against him. 10. In the present case by impugned order (Annexure 4) the petitioner was not awarded any punishment-major or minor, like dismissal or removal from service or withholding of increment etc. which would have contemplated that he was still in service. After his retirement, no doubt, the petitioner could have been punished otherwise and consequently his pension could have been withheld and other steps could also have been taken as contemplated by Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules. I find that while passing the impugned order authority concerned was conscious of this position and accordingly passed orders within the provisions of Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules. 11. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders, Annexures 4 and 5. This writ application is dismissed. No costs.