Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent- Electricity Board. 2. Initially petitioner had challenged the order of punishment dated 26.12.2002 contained in Annexure-14 by virtue of which the respondent-Board had ordered deduction of pension of petitioner by 2%. Petitioner challenged this order but the Court gave him liberty to file an appeal. Vide order dated 28.10.2005 contained in Annexure-17 the appeal was rejected. Therefore the petitioner is back again before this Court challenging both the Annexures-14 and 17. 3. The basic submission of petitioner is that the petitioner retired from service on 31.2.2000. After his retirement some kind of enquiry was initiated and in the same regard he was asked to offer his explanation. The respondents based on this proceeding decided to impose punishment of deduction of pension by 2%. It is not only in violation of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules but also the law well settled in this regard by this Court. Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 envisages that there must be record available with the respondent that the service of employee was not satisfactory during the service tenure and there should be adjudication of misconduct in this regard during the service period of the employee in question. If these aspect of the matters are not available then the respondents cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. 4. It is apparent from the pleadings in the writ application as well as the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents that some kind of a proceeding was initiated against petitioner after his superannuation on 31.12.2000. This was supposed to be a proceeding under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules and based on this proceeding or show cause the order of punishment has came to be passed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner relies on two decisions of this Hon ble Court in support of his contentions, one is the case of Kamla Sharan Singh V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., 1999 2 PLJR 294 and the other decision is of Division Bench in the case of Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. V/s. Buneshwar Prasad, 2007 1 PLJR 111 . Both the decisions are in support of the contention which has been urged on behalf of petitioner. V/s. Buneshwar Prasad, 2007 1 PLJR 111 . Both the decisions are in support of the contention which has been urged on behalf of petitioner. To that extent the petitioner seems to be correct that the action which has been taken against him is in clear breach of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, more so Rule 139(c). 6. If the order of punishment which has been passed against petitioner is in conflict with the necessary rules as well as law then there is no option for the Court but to interfere with the same. The order contained in annexures-14 as well as 17 are hereby quashed. Petitioner will be entitled to full pension as a consequence of the order which has been passed in the present case. 7. In case the deductions have already been effected in pursuant to the orders under challenge, the respondents are directed to take steps to pay the same to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. 8. This writ application is allowed.