ORDER While the petitioner was in service, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 7th December, 1995, and thereby a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The charges, as were framed against the petitioner, were enquired upon by an Enquiry Officer, who submitted enquiry report on 18th January, 1997 and thereby exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. Subsequent thereto on 31st January, 1997 the petitioner retired. The disciplinary proceeding whereupon was dropped and no further action thereon was taken. The disciplinary proceeding was also not converted into a proceeding under rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. On 24th April, 1999 a show cause was issued to the petitioner, and thereby it was held out why for thorough dissatisfactory services of the petitioner, his pension should not be reduced by 10 per cent. No particulars of thorough dissatisfactory services of the petitioner have been indicated in the show cause. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 3rd August, 2000, the pension payable to the petitioner to the extent of 10 per cent thereof has been directed to be withheld in exercise of power under rule 139 of the Pension Rules, 1950. 2. The Rule 139 of the said rules is as follows: (a) The full pension admissible under the rule 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, or any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed. 3. A look at the said rules would show that the same permits reduction in the amount of pension provided the services of the employees in question had been found, in course of his service tenure, not satisfactory. 3. A look at the said rules would show that the same permits reduction in the amount of pension provided the services of the employees in question had been found, in course of his service tenure, not satisfactory. A person who has earned in his confidential reports either poor or average throughout his career or during a substantial part of his career, it is not obligatory on the part of the State to give such employee full pension and that is what has been provided in Rule 139 of the said Rules. Therefore, if an employee has been rendering unsatisfactory duty, he should be told during his service tenure that you have performed unsatisfactory, and if he has thus performed unsatisfactorily, it is permissible to reduce a part of his pension by taking recourse to Rule 139. 4. When, however, an employee is guilty of maleficence or misfeasance, it is the duty of the employer to establish the same, who for that purpose is required to take recourse to disciplinary proceedings while the employee is in employment, and after his retirement to convert such proceeding, if initiated during his service tenure, into a proceeding under Rule 43(b) or if no such proceeding has been initiated during his service tenure, to initiate such proceeding within the time specified in the said Rule. In such proceeding, the guilt as alleged, is required to be proved as a condition precedent to take measures under the said Rule. 5. In the instant case after the Enquiry Officer reported that the charges as levelled against the petitioner have not been proved, the disciplinary proceeding was not decided to be continued further, and accordingly, the charge of maleficence and misfeasance against the petitioner stood removed at the time he retired. In the show cause dated 24th April, 1999, it had not been indicated to the petitioner that during a substantial part of his service career, he received poor or average in his confidential reports, and accordingly, his services have not been satisfactory, for which measures may be taken under rule 139 of the said Rules. 6. In those circumstances, despite there being nothing against the petitioner, but in order to victimize him, merely on the basis of allegations, 10 per cent of pension of the petitioner was reduced by the impugned order dehors the power to do so. 6. In those circumstances, despite there being nothing against the petitioner, but in order to victimize him, merely on the basis of allegations, 10 per cent of pension of the petitioner was reduced by the impugned order dehors the power to do so. The action as complained of, therefore, is ultra vires the powers vested in the authority. 7. In those circumstances, the impugned order dated 3rd August, 2000 is quashed. 10 percent pension not paid to the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 3rd August, 2000 be paid to the petitioner within a month from today together with statutory interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of retirement of the petitioner until payment. In addition, the State is directed to compensate the petitioner, for tarnishing his image in his close society, at Rs. 2,00,000/ - (Rupees Two Lakhs) to be recovered from the erring officers of the State, who engineered the impugned order dated 3rd August, 2000. 8. The above payment must be made within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This disposes of the writ petition.