JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner was working as Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer at Samastipur during the period 1988-90 when it is said that medicines were ordered from M.S.D. Kolkata which were much beyond the sanctioned amount of medicines to be purchased by Civil Surgeons of various districts. 2. The petitioner retired from service on 30,6.1998. After his retirement charges were framed and served on the petitioner on 21.6.1999 for the purpose of initiating a departmental proceeding which contains the allegations of misappropriation for the period 1989-90 as would be apparent from the charge sheet at Annexure-5/1. 3. Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised several points in this writ petition, that is, (a) that the report of the enquiry conducted in the departmental proceeding was not supplied to the petitioner which has been held to be a mandatory provisions by various judgments of this court, (b) the department during the enquiry did not produce even a chit of paper to indicate as to how the petitioner had connived or was responsible for misappropriation or raising high bills of M.S.D. Kolkata and (c) the second show cause served on the petitioner indicates that the petitioner was to show his cause with respect to reduction of 5% of the pension, whereas the order of punishment indicates that 50% of the pension amount has been deducted by way of punishment, apart from other punishments inflicted on the petitioner. 4. All these aspects of the matter or any one of the point raised by counsel for the petitioner would lead to the conclusion that the proceedings were defective. However, in such cases as mentioned above the court would have the option to quash the proceeding and remand the matter for rehearing. 5. The technical point on which this writ petition has to be allowed is with respect to the provisions of rule 43b(ii) which envisages that a retired employee may face a departmental proceeding with respect to an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of the proceeding. (emphasis added) 6. The facts as mentioned aforesaid reveal that the occurrence took place in 1988 and 1990 and the proceeding was instituted on 1.6.1999. (emphasis added) 6. The facts as mentioned aforesaid reveal that the occurrence took place in 1988 and 1990 and the proceeding was instituted on 1.6.1999. It is not the case of the State that the petitioner was under suspension during the period prior to his retirement which would have justified the initiation of the proceeding in the year 1999. The aforesaid facts are covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the State of Bihar vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari, 1995(2) PLJR (SC)51 wherein the provisions of Rule 43(b)(ii) have been interpreted in favour of the incumbent by holding that the departmental proceeding would be barred by virtue of the fact that the proceeding has been initiated beyond four years of the institution. 7. I accordingly quash the order, dated 10.2.2005 contained in Annexure 10 of the writ petition. This writ petition is, thus, allowed.