Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. By virtue' of Annexure-1 dated 8: 12.201 0 punishment of withholding of 10% pension of the petitioner was passed. This punishment has been imposed in the purported exercise of power conferred upon the State under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. 3. Few facts which must be noted i.e. petitioner was an Inspectress of School posted in Munger. It is alleged that she made two illegal appointments and these illegal appointments, obviously, entailed burden on the public exchequer. The appointments related to the year 1991-92. Nothing was done at that relevant time. Petitioner superannuated on 30.6.1998. She was enjoying her retired life with pension having been sanctioned in her favour till the respondents decided to withhold 10% of her pension in the year 2010 which is eleven years after her retirement. 4. A very pointed submission on behalf of the petitioner has been made at the Bar based on catena of decisions on the interpretation which has been given by the High Court as to the ambit of the power which can be exercised under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. There is no dispute that such a power is vested in the State authorities to withhold pension in the circumstances indicated but there is a bar to the exercise of power in the sense that a time frame has also been fixed by which such action can be initiated and consequences to flow. 5. The time frame fixed as per the said Rule is four years of the so-called misconduct committed by the employee. 6. From the narration made above, it is evident that, the entire exercise is a wasted exercise because the mi conduct related to the year 1991-92. Petitioner retired in June, 1998 and the proceeding was initiated on 12.5.2009 leading to imposition of punishment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court many a judgments, some of which must be taken note of which is the case of Kedar Paswan vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 2010(4) PLJR 146 , Kishore Prasanna Sinha vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2010(4) PLJR 47 etc. etc. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court many a judgments, some of which must be taken note of which is the case of Kedar Paswan vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 2010(4) PLJR 146 , Kishore Prasanna Sinha vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2010(4) PLJR 47 etc. etc. 8. Though a detailed and a kind of bulky counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State giving a long narrative to the incident and the circumstance which required such an action against the petitioner. But the facts by itself do not help the State in overcoming the stumbling block created in their way by the interpretation given by the High Court in various decisions and the limitation to the power which has been read or is provided for under Rule 43(b) of the Rules. 9. It cannot be the case of the State authorities that they are not bound by this Rule, though they have themselves enacted it. The action taken is unknown to the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, before they decided to zero down on the petitioner by imposing punishment of withholding 10% of pension at such belated stage of her life. 10. Keeping the ratios of the decisions coupled with the provision of Rule 43(b), the Court has absolutely no hesitation in quashing Annexure-1 and allowing this writ application. 11. This writ application, thus, stands allowed.