JUDGEMENT AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. 1. Petitioner retired from the post of Superintending Engineer, Flood Control Circle, Khagaria on 30.6.1993. Earlier he was deputed to Subarna Rekha Project which now falls in the erstwhile State of Jharkhand. He remained under Subarna Rekha Project from September, 1984 til! November, 1991. 2. Post retirement petitioner was sanctioned provisional pension amounting to Rs. 2,498/- which was only to the extent of 90 per cent. Some other payments had been made to him but the final settlement of his pension was not made because the respondent authorities had initiated certain proceedings against him for his act of omission and commission while working under Subarna Rekha Project. Three sets of orders came to be passed which are under challenge as Annexures-1, 2 and 3. Annexures-1 and 2 have lost their meaning because these orders came to be withdrawan at a subsequent stage. The only issue therefore which is hurting the petitioner is the order dated 15.1.1998 contained in Annexure-3. 3. In terms of the order impugned the competent authority came to a considered opinion that since the petitioner has caused serious pecuniary loss to the Government for which explanation had been called for on 29.4.1992 (Annexure-10) under Rule 55- A of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (for short, the Rules) which was not found to be satisfactory, 50 per cent pension was ordered to be withheld on a permanent basis. 4. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner as a way of challenge to the punishment order contained in Annexure-3 is that no proper enquiry was held as envisaged under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. In absence of any departmental enquiry the punishment of withholding of pension cannot be passed. It is urged that no departmental proceeding could have been held after retirement of the petitioner more so if the misconduct or the pecuniary loss is more than 4 years old because the rule envisages a bar. It is also urged that in absence of any categorical finding with regard to pecuniary loss the pension cannot be withheld. Various decisions in this regard have been cited at the bar. 5. The principle of law laid down in the various decisions are not the issue because they are well settled. The question is whether the action of the respondents in passing Annexure-3 is in order or not? Various decisions in this regard have been cited at the bar. 5. The principle of law laid down in the various decisions are not the issue because they are well settled. The question is whether the action of the respondents in passing Annexure-3 is in order or not? Admitted position is that the petitioner superannuated from the post of Superintending Engineer on 30.6.1993. While he was still in service he was issued a show cause under Rule 55-A of the Rules, On 29.4.1992 petitioner gave a detailed reply which has been brought on record as Annexure-11 to the writ application. The explanation offered is dated 22.6.1992. The explanation relates to his conduct while he was still in service which is a clear indication as to the serious pecuniary loss which has been caused to the State exchequer because of omission and commission of allowing certain benefits to one Arbind Construction Company. The charges are laid out in Annexure-10 and the petitioner in his detailed reply contained in Annexure-11 has tried to deal with every aspect of the matter. The matter remained under consideration of the authorities and taking the explanation and material on record respondent authorities have passed the order contained in Annexure-3. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that even on the basis of a show cause or an action under Rule 55-A of the Rules they can impose a punishment under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. In this case this aspect cannot be denied by the petitioner that he was issued a show cause, he filed his reply and when his explanation was rejected he even filed an appeal. If despite the best effort of the petitioner to shake off the liability and responsibility of having caused serious pecuhiary loss did not succeed then there are no legal impediments in passing an order as has been done by Annexure-3. Counsel for the State relies on the decision rendered in the case of Chitranjan Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar & Others, 2005 (4) PLJR 510 . Counsel for the State further also informs the Court that for the act of omission and commission of the petitioner a Vigilance Case No. 1 of 1998 has been instituted against him. He has been charge-sheeted in the same and cognizance has been taken. Counsel for the State further also informs the Court that for the act of omission and commission of the petitioner a Vigilance Case No. 1 of 1998 has been instituted against him. He has been charge-sheeted in the same and cognizance has been taken. His effort to extricate himself by challenging the said order of cognizance also failed because the High Court rejected his case in Cr. Misc. No. 37153 of 2006. 7. Long winding submissions have been made at the bar on behalf of the petitioner to overcome the order of withholding the punishment to the extent of 50 per cent but the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court that it is not a case without material and it is also not a case where a proceeding had not been initiated against the petitioner during his service tenure. May be for some reasons the respondents could not draw a proceeding for major punishment but that by itself does not preclude action by the respondents if the petitioner had been given a show cause under Rule 55-A of the Rules and against which petitioner had filed his detailed show cause and later on even an appeal which is Annexure-12 to the writ application. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner has tried to take this Court through the voluminous documents to show that responsibility lay at the door of some other persons and not at his door. But this Court has reservation in appreciating such submission because the ambit of the dispute of the present writ application is validity of the order contained in Annexure-3. 8. The Court is satisfied that respondents had followed the procedure before passing the order withholding 50 per cent pension of the petitioner, which is under challenge, in Annexure-3. 9. There is no merit in the writ application. The same is dismissed.