Judgment By Court.-Bukhdeo Ram, the sole respondent was employed as Senior Accounts Clerk in Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government at Ramgarh. In the year 1993 it was highlighted that a sum of Rs. 1,49,747.83 paise was misappropriated by him and not deposited in the treasury at Hazaribagh. 2. An First Information Report was lodged against him for the alleged offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and in connection therewith he was arrested on 19.1.1994. 3. Subsequently by order dated 21.5.1994 he was put under suspension and his headquarter was fixed at Ramgarh. He remained under custody for about three years. He was convicted and sentenced for three years imprisonment by the trial court on 6.4.1995. 4. He preferred Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1995 before the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh and during pendency of the appeal after completion of the period of sentence was related some time in the year 1997. After having been released from custody he reported on duty on 8.9.1997, but neither he was allowed to join his duty nor was paid the salary for the suspension period nor full salary from 8.9.1997. 5. He thereafter moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3925 of 1999 (R) for a direction to accept his joining from the date he was released from custody and to pay subsistence allowing from 19.1.1994 to 8.9.1997, as also the arrears of salary from 8.9.1997 onwards. The learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 2.5.2001 allowed the writ petition and directed payment of admitted dues, including his salary for the period of suspension as well as from 8.9.1997 till his retirement and his retiral benefits. It was observed that no departmental proceedings was initiated against him during his service period and as such the State Government could not have initiated a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules against him after his retirement. The Superintending Engineer concerned was directed to pay him the admitted dues including his balance salary for the period of suspension and full salary from 8.9.1997 till retirement as also the admitted retiral benefits. 6. The State of Jharkhand has, therefore, challenged the said order in the present appeal. According to appellant, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the sole respondent by office Order No. 22 dated 3.5.2000 (Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed in the writ application). 6. The State of Jharkhand has, therefore, challenged the said order in the present appeal. According to appellant, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the sole respondent by office Order No. 22 dated 3.5.2000 (Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed in the writ application). The order was issued initiating departmental proceeding against him and the Executive Engineer was appointed as Enquiry Officer. In the enquiry report dated 17.2.2000 he was held guilty and was directed to adjust the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,49,747.83 paise from his pension and leave encashment. Show cause notice was also issued to him on 19.5.2000, i.e. before his superannuation as to why a departmental proceeding be not initiated against him in respect of the charges, contained in letter no. 22 dated 3.5.2000. After his superannuation, under a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules an order was passed directing for recovery of the amount defalcated by him. 7. We therefore, find that it was not correct to say that no departmental proceeding was initiated against him before his retirement. After the sole respondent came out of jail, the charge sheet dated 3.5.2000 could not be served on him and before' his superannuation the said proceeding could not be completed. 8. Rule 43(b) provides that the State Government reserves the right of withholding the pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right or ordering the recovery from the pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceeding to -have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including the service rendered on re-employment after retirement. 9. In our opinion, after retirement of the sole respondent, pending a departmental proceeding against him, the appellant rightly punished him under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and directed recovery of the defalcated amount from him and the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the said order dated 17.10.2000. 10. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 2.5.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge and confirm the order dated 17.10.2000 passed by the departmental authority as contained in Annexure 5 to the supplementary affidavit. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed, but without costs.