Judgment Sudhir Kumar Katriar and Kishore K.Mandal JJ. 1. The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court and is aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWJC. No.7560 of 1998, and the analogous writ petition (bearing CWJC. No.6453 of 1998), whereby the departmental proceedings against the writ petitioner has been quashed. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ petition. 2. A brief fact essential for disposal of the appeal may be indicated hereinbelow. The writ petitioner (Andrika Prasad Singh) was a Class III employee of the Bihar Government. He had on transfer joined Masaurhi Anchal as Nazir on 30.11.1990. A charge sheet was served on him on 12.9.1995 (Annexure 4). The inquiry report was submitted which, inter alia, stated that a fresh and deeper audit report is called for. The petitioner retired in the meanwhile on 30.11.1997, but final order had not been passed. He preferred CWJC. No.7560 of 1998, for quashing the departmental proceedings, and CWJC. No.6453 of 1998, for release of his post retrial benefits. It is relevant to state that this court, while admitting the appeal for hearing, had stayed operation of the impugned order. 2.1) The writ petitions were disposed of by a common order impugned herein, whereby the same were allowed. The departmental proceeding was quashed, and the respondent authorities were directed to release the post -retirement benefits with interest. The State of Bihar has preferred the present appeal against that part of the impugned order, whereby the departmental proceeding was set aside. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the respondent State of Bihar submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned judgment, which has been made the basis for quashing the departmental proceedings. The departmental proceeding is hit by the provisions of rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pensions Rules which, inter alia, prescribes the bar of four years to initiate the departmental proceeding after the employee had retired. He has also placed before us a copy of the order dated 5.3.2004, conveyed by letter bearing no.733 dated 7.5.2004, issued by the Collector of the District of Patna, in an effort to satisfy us that final orders have been passed in the departmental proceedings. 4. He has also placed before us a copy of the order dated 5.3.2004, conveyed by letter bearing no.733 dated 7.5.2004, issued by the Collector of the District of Patna, in an effort to satisfy us that final orders have been passed in the departmental proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has supported the impugned judgment. 5. We have perused the materials on the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The analogous CWJC. No. 6453 of 1998 was for a direction to make payment of the post-retirement benefits. The same was allowed and direction was issued for payment of post-retirement benefits with interest. We are informed at the bar that the order has been complied with and the entire post-retirement benefits have been paid to him. In any case, that part of the composite order whereby CWJC. No.6453 of 1998 was allowed, has not been challenged in appeal and has attained finality. 6. We are of the view that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is not hit by the bar of rule 43(b) . The charge-sheet was served on 12.9.1995 (Annexure-4), while he was still in service, and superannuated with effect from 30.11.1997. It is evident that rule 43(b) applies only after an employee has superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government. Law is equally well settled that, if the proceedings had commenced while the employee was still in service, the same shall be deemed to have been automatically converted into proceedings under rule 43(b) and is not hit by the bar of rule 43 (b). In that view of the matter, it was not a fit case in which the departmental proceedings could have been quashed on the ground assigned in the impugned order. 7. A different aspect of the matter, however, deserves consideration. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed before us the aforesaid order dated 5.3.2004, passed by the Collector of the District of Patna, wherein he has stated that the irregularities to the extent of Rs.31,485.00 had taken place during the financial year 1989-90, meaning thereby the period of irregularity ended on 31.3.1990. The writ petitioner had joined Masaurhi Anchal on 30.11.1990. It is thus evident that the irregularities had taken place in Masaurhi Anchal before the petitioner had joined there. The writ petitioner had joined Masaurhi Anchal on 30.11.1990. It is thus evident that the irregularities had taken place in Masaurhi Anchal before the petitioner had joined there. The entire proceeding against the petitioner was, therefore, based on non-est grounds. The petitioner has suffered no end in the evening of his life for reasons entirely attributable to the respondent authorities and has been driven to this court upto the present stage. We express our displeasure on the callous approach of the respondent authorities. 8) In the result, the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CWJC. No.7560 of 1998, and is upheld. The appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- which shall be payable to the writ petitioner within a period of three months from today.