Judgment 1. Heard Mr. R. K. Sinha for the petitioner, and Mr. Mohit Kumar Sah for the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board and its officials. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.6.2000 (Annexure-5), passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), acting as an appellate authority in accordance with the Certified Standing Orders of the Board, whereby he has upheld the order dated 8.10.1999 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Joint Secretary of the Board, being the first authority under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In other words, the learned appellate authority has upheld the order of the first authority whereby it has been ordered that the petitioner shall be deprived of 5 per cent of his pension from the date of the impugned order, and has further ordered for recovery of 10 per cent of the embezzled amount. 2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner was an employee of the respondent Board and superannuated from its service with effect from 31.8.1994, while functioning as an Accountant. Soon after his superannuation, the respondent authorities discovered embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 1.80 lacs (approximate) in the office where the petitioner had earlier served. He was, therefore, issued show-cause notice dated 13.9.1995 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit), as to why action be not taken against him in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Rules. Cause was shown by the petitioner by his communication dated 19.9.1995 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit), wherein he, inter-alia, stated as follows: Thereafter the respondent-Board had passed order dated 7.4.1998, initiating proceeding under section 43(b) of the Rules against the petitioner and the Cashier (Laxmi Narain Dutta), as is manifest from the order of the first authority marked Annexure-1. Thereafter charge-sheet was issued on 9.4.1998. The petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of defending his position before the learned first authority. The enquiry report dated 24.12.1998 was submitted by the Director of Departmental Proceedings of the respondent Board. The first authority issued second show-cause notice to him calling upon as to why 10 per cent of his pension be not deducted from his monthly pension, apart from recovery of 10 per cent of the embezzled amount. The petitioner had shown cause. The enquiry report dated 24.12.1998 was submitted by the Director of Departmental Proceedings of the respondent Board. The first authority issued second show-cause notice to him calling upon as to why 10 per cent of his pension be not deducted from his monthly pension, apart from recovery of 10 per cent of the embezzled amount. The petitioner had shown cause. On consideration of the same and other materials available on record, the learned first authority passed the aforesaid order dated 8.10.1999 (Annexure-1), imposing the aforesaid penalty. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring C.W.J.C. No. 8507 of 1998 (Niranjan Prasad Singh V/s. The Bihar State Electricity Board and others) which was disposed of by order dated 28.1.2000 (Annexure-2), whereby the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to prefer statutory appeal.The petitioner thereafter presented his memorandum of appeal (Annexure-3) before the appellate authority, who has dismissed the appeal by the impugned order, and has upheld the order of the learned first authority. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not supplied copies of certain documents which were essential for his defence. Not having been supplied with the same, the petitioner was prejudiced in his defence. In order to substantiate the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the relevant portion of the memorandum of appeal (Annexure-3) wherein this issue has been raised. I am unable to accede to the submission for various reasons. The petitioner has failed to substantiate the submission by laying the factual foundation in the writ petition, precluding the respondents from rebutting this point in the counter affidavit. Secondly, the petitioner has not placed on record any contemporaneous material to satisfy this Court that he had raised the grievance about non-supply of the documents during the course of enquiry proceedings. He relies on the judgment of this Court reported in 1996(1) P.L.J.R. page 469 (Prakash V/s. Board of Directors, Mithila Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Darbhanga and others). The same is of no avail to the petitioner because the grievance was not raised before the enquiry officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention is a self-serving statement to suit his convenience. The contention is, therefore, rejected. 4. The same is of no avail to the petitioner because the grievance was not raised before the enquiry officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention is a self-serving statement to suit his convenience. The contention is, therefore, rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the proceeding is hit by the bar of limitation engrafted in proviso (ii) to Rule 43(b) of the Rules which lays down that such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, can be instituted only in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. In my view, Explanation (a) thereof illumines the position to the effect that for the purpose of the rule, the departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, the departmental proceeding was initiated on 7.4.1998, and the show-cause was issued to the petitioner on 9.4.1998 with respect to events which took place between November 1993 and July 1995. Obviously, therefore, the impugned proceedings are not hit by the bar of four years as engrafted in Rule 43 of the Rules. The charges were served on petitioner within four years of the date of the event. The contention, therefore, fails. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents is further right in his submission that the petitioner has admitted excess payment to others and he had failed to do the necessary checking, as is manifest from the cause shown by him on 19.9.1995 (Annexure-B), the relevant portion of which is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference. Learned counsel for the respondent has rightly relied on the judgment reported in 2000(2) P.L.J.R. page 765 (State of Bihar and others V/s. Man Bahadur Mahto & another) and 2000(3) P.L.J.R. page 604 (Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Sharma V/s. The State of Bihar and others), wherein the aforesaid proviso (ii) to Rule 43(b) has been discussed. 6. In the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.