Judgment Mridula Mishra, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. The petitioners case is that he retired on 31.7.1994 as the Deputy Director of Accounts from Barauni Thermal Power Station, Begusarai. After his retirement he was re-employed in service with effect from 7.2.1995 to 6.2.1996. During this period of re-employment no charge was levelled against him. Subsequently on 25.4.1996 a notice was issued to him whereby he was informed that a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The memo of charges was served on him indicating that the proceeding has been initiated with respect to an event which took place in the month of March, 1992. Initiation of proceeding was challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 4940 of 1996. This writ application was allowed by order, dated 4.2.1998, and the departmental proceeding initiated u/s. 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was quashed. In the last line of the order it was observed that "quashing of the departmental proceeding will not stand in the way of the authorities to proceed under sec. 139(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules". The Bihar State Electricity Board challenged the order passed in CWJC No. 4940 of 1996 in L.P.A. No. 446 of 1998. In the memo of appeal observation of the single Judge, giving liberty for initiation of proceeding u/s. 139(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules was challenged as ground No. (V), i.e. "for that the observation made in the last paragraph giving liberty to the Board u/s. 139(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules to proceed against respondent No. 1 is oblivious of the fact that the full pension had already been fixed and released by the Board on 27.7.1994 on the eve of superannuation of respondent No. 1 with effect from 1.8.1994 and therefore any action taken in this regard would again trigger of another round of litigation". The respondent Board even though challenged the order passed in the writ application in the L.P.A., simultaneously initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner u/s. 139(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 8.6.2000 asking the petitioner to file his explanation as to why 20% of his pension may not be reduced from his pensionary benefit due to his unsatisfactory service. This was replied by the petitioner highlighting the legal position that initiation of proceeding was forbidden. Considering the fact that pension of the petitioner has been fixed on the eve of his superannuation on 1.8.1994, after so many years no such proceeding can be initiated against the petitioner. The respondent authorities vide another resolution No. 1060, dated 31.7.2002, again directed the petitioner to file a show cause as to why 20% of the pension amount be not deducted for the act committed by the petitioner. This was also replied and explained by the petitioner in his show cause, dated 26.8.2002. In his show cause petitioner stressed that the power to initiate such proceeding and to take recourse to the same, beyond the period of express limit as incorporated in Rule 139, was not admissible under the law. It was to the surprise of the petitioner when he received copies of two memos, i.e. memo No. 113 and 114, dated 22.1.2003, in the shape of a communication only, vide memo No. 113 pension order allowing full pension of Rs. 2, 538.00 per month to the petitioner was reduced to Rs. 2,030.00 per month with retrospective effect, applicable since 1.8.1994. By the next memo No. 114 enhanced revised pension of petitioner was modified and reduced to Rs. 5,341.00 from Rs. 6,676.00 with effect from 1.1.1996, It was also made applicable in respect of the commuted pension with effect from 4.8.1994. Petitioner receiving this two communications contacted the respondents and came to know that on the basis of show cause filed by the petitioner in respect of the initiation of proceeding under Rule 139(a) of the Pension Rules final orders have been passed which are contained in resolution No. 1446, dated 21.11.2002. By this order pension of the petitioner was reduced by twenty percent on permanent basis. Petitioners case is that before issuing the orders vide memo No. 113 and 114 dated 22.1.2003. He was not given any reasonable opportunity regarding the proposed supersession of the preceding order of pension, dated 27.7.1994, and the revised pension order, dated 2.3.2004, were passed against the petitioner. He was not given an opportunity and order of reduction of pension was passed against him. Petitioners prayer is for quashing these orders on the ground that they are highly unreasonable and outcome of an arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. 3. He was not given an opportunity and order of reduction of pension was passed against him. Petitioners prayer is for quashing these orders on the ground that they are highly unreasonable and outcome of an arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Board preliminary objection has been raised regarding the maintainability of the writ application. It has been stated that as per the provisions, against the order of punishment, dated 21.11.2002, the petitioner should have filed an appeal under Rule 59-A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. Since the petitioner has not availed the statutory alternative remedy of appeal before the Board and has approached directly to this Hon ble Court, this writ application is not maintainable. 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed to this effect that there was charges of gross misconduct against the petitioner, as such, the Board decided to initiate a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner under the Pension Rules, was quashed in CWJC No. 4940 of 1996, and the Board preferred L.P.A. No. 446 of 1998 against the order, dated 4.2.1998 passed in the writ application. During the pendency of the appeal, the Board in view of the fact that this Hon ble Court had observed that the Bihar State Electricity Board can take action under Rule 139(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 , served a show cause notice upon the petitioner as to why twenty per cent of his pension may not be reduced from his pensionary benefits. Instead of complying with the orders, the petitioner challenged the said show cause notice terming it to be arbitrary and against the provisions of law. The show cause was issued to the petitioner on account of inter party judgment wherein this Hon ble Court had given liberty to the Board to initiate action under Rule 139(a) of the Bihar Pensions Rules. Subsequently, a fresh show cause notice under Rule 139(a) of Bihar Pension Rules was issued to the petitioner detailing therein controvertible fact threadbare and proposing the same punishment of reduction of his pension by twenty per cent from his pensionary benefits vide resolution No. 1060, dated 31.7.2002. Subsequently, a fresh show cause notice under Rule 139(a) of Bihar Pension Rules was issued to the petitioner detailing therein controvertible fact threadbare and proposing the same punishment of reduction of his pension by twenty per cent from his pensionary benefits vide resolution No. 1060, dated 31.7.2002. In reply to the said show cause, the petitioner has not submitted the factual reply rather he has questioned the jurisdiction of notice under Rule 139(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules on the ground that it may be issued only within three years from the date of sanction of pension, whereas in his case eight years has elapsed and secondly that the Board itself has challenged the order of Hon ble Single Judge by preferring an appeal being L.P.A. No. 446 of 1998 then how the Board has served him notice under Rule 139(a) of the Pension Rules. On consideration of the reply of the petitioner, case record and another relevant facts the grounds stated in the show cause were deemed to be proved and the punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner vide memo No. 1486, dated 21.11.2002. 5. The significant question involved in the present application which relates to the procedure meant to be followed in conducting the proceeding under Rule 139(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules reads as follows : 139(a) The full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. (c) The State Government, reserve to themselves the powers of revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. No such power shall however, be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, nor any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed. 6. No such power shall however, be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, nor any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed. 6. From Rule 139(a) it will be evident that an employee as a matter of course is not entitled to full pension, which is payable to certain rides while past record including conduct as recorded required to be seen for grant of full pension under Rule 139(a), future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pension under Rule 43(b). Even on the basis of future conduct, the Government has a right to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof. Rule 139(a) is interlinked to Rule 139(b) and (c) Rule 139(a) speaks that the pension is not payable to the employee as a matter of course but it is subject to the service rendered by the employee unless the service is satisfactory, the sanctioning authority is empowered to make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper but this power can be exercised as stated under Rule 139(a) only after giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension. This power can not be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has retired on 31.7.1994 and after his retirement his pension was sanctioned by the Board on 27.7.1994. The proceeding under sec. 139(a) has been initiated by the Board by issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner on 8.6.2000. Now it can be said that on 27.7.1994 when the pension was sanctioned to the petitioner with effect from 1.8.1994 his past service was found to be satisfactory and proceeding u/s. 139(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules has been initiated after six years of the sanctioning of the pension at the eve of retirement of the petitioner, which is definitely barred by Rule 139(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Under Sub-rule (c) of Rule 139 by way of revisional power the payment of the pension to retired employee can be revised by the sanctioning authority if the service of pensioner is not thoroughly satisfactory or there is proof of grave mis-conduct. However, for exercising such revisional power to curtail the pension a limitation of three years is prescribed, which is to be counted from the date the pension is sanctioned by the competent authority. The question of limitation has also been prescribed under Sub-rule (2) of the Clause (a) to the proviso of Rule 43(b) wherein four years period of limitation has been prescribed, to be counted from the initiation of proceeding. Therein specific stipulation has been made not to pass any order in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the initiation of the proceeding. The aforesaid period of limitation prescribed under Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 has been duly considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Md. Idrish Ansari, 1995 Suppl (3) SC 56. In the same case the Supreme Court observed and held as follows : "So far as that rule is concerned, it empowers the State Authorities to decide the question whether full pension should be allowed to a retired Government servant or not in the circumstances contemplated by the Rules. The first circumstance is that if the service of the Government servant concerned is not found to be thoroughly satisfactory, appropriate reduction in the pension can be ordered by the sanctioning authority. The second circumstance is that if it is found that service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or there is proof of grave misconduct on the part of the Government servant concerned while in service, the State Government in exercise of revisional power may interfere with the fixation of pension by the subordinate authority. But such power flowing from Rule 139, under the aforesaid circumstances, is further hedged by two conditions. First condition is that revisional power has to be exercised in consonance with the principles of natural justice and secondly such revisional power can be exercised only within three years from the date of the sanctioning of the pension for the first time." 8. First condition is that revisional power has to be exercised in consonance with the principles of natural justice and secondly such revisional power can be exercised only within three years from the date of the sanctioning of the pension for the first time." 8. For curtailment of the pension which is already sanctioned, it is essential that there must be proof of grave misconduct on the part of the retired employee during his service tenure either in judicial or departmental proceeding. After sanctioning of the pension in favour of the retirement of the employee this revisional power under Rule 139(a) is to be exercised within three years from the date of the sanctioning of the pension. In the present case, admittedly, the period of three years has expired long time back and also that the order has been passed against the petitioner without observing the principle of natural justice. He was not given any opportunity to place his case, simply a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but no opportunity to deny the allegation was provided to the petitioner. Any proceeding which is initiated either under Rule 43(b) or under Rule 139(a) must proceed as provided in the relevant Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. Considering the fact that the procedure was not properly adopted by the respondents and also that the order has been passed beyond the period of limitation as provide under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 139. The impugned memos bearing No. 113 and 114, dated 22.1.2003, as well as the resolution No. 1486, dated 21.11.2002, are quashed, 9. The application is allowed and the respondents are directed to make payment of full pension to the petitioner as sanctioned earlier vide orders, dated 27.7.1994 and 1.1.1996.