JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For quashing the office order dated 30.09.2005 contained in Memo no.3961 issued under the signature of respondent no.2 by which claim of petitioner, for payment of salary for the period of dismissal i.e. 07.09.1999 to 26.06.2001 has been rejected. (ii) For quashing the 2nd show cause notice issued by respondent no.2 vide letter no.746 dated 10.05.2005 by which petitioner was found guilty for the alleged charges. 2. Alternatively, the petitioner has also prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) Directing the respondents to conduct the departmental proceeding in terms of Bihar Pension Rules. (b) Restraining the respondents from passing any order pursuant to the issuance of the impugned order unless a proceeding in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is held. (c) To direct the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period of dismissal i.e. 07.09.1999 to 26.06.2001. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he was appointed as Land Valuation Officer in the Bihar Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as „the Bank? for the sake of brevity) in the year 1968, but subsequently a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was terminated from service on 07.09.1999. 4. The petitioner challenged the said termination order before this Court by filing CWJC No.60 of 2000 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.05.2001 quashing the order of petitioner?s termination on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer being in petitioner?s favour the disciplinary authority can take a different view only after giving an opportunity of show cause to the concerned employee and in such show cause notice tentative ground should be indicated on the basis of which the disciplinary authority proposed to take a different view. This not having been done in the case of the petitioner, the aforesaid order of termination was found to be vitiated in law due to non-observance of the rules of natural justice and the disciplinary authority was directed that if they wanted to initiate such a proceeding they must give fresh notice of such intention incorporating the tentative grounds for such action. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that after the aforesaid order of this Court he joined his service on 27.06.2001 and thereafter show cause notice dated 01.08.2001 was issued by the disciplinary authority, in response to which the petitioner filed his detailed show cause on 14.08.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner further averred that although the petitioner superannuated within one year thereafter, i.e. on 30.06.2002, but no step in the proceeding was taken by the authorities concerned and all of a sudden order dated 30.09.2005 was passed by the disciplinary authority holding that the charges against the petitioner was found to be proved for which punishment of withholding of salary from 07.09.1999 till 26.06.2001 was given. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 30.09.2005 on the grounds that the departmental proceeding was initiated on 01.08.2001 and show cause was filed by the petitioner on 14.08.2001, whereafter the petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2002, but neither any proceeding under Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules ((hereinafter referred to as „the Rules? for the sake of brevity) was initiated nor the departmental proceeding was converted into a proceeding under the said provision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner?s show cause, which was filed within time about four years prior to the impugned order, was not considered in the impugned order and the charges were not proved and the order was passed merely on presumption and not on any concrete material. Hence, on the basis of mere suggestion no punishment can be given, especially when the efficiency of the petitioner had been accepted by the authorities of the Bank themselves. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents-Bank and its authorities opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and claimed that the impugned order had been passed in compliance of the order of this court and also after observing all the formalities and considering the entire materials on record in accordance with law, hence there is no requirement of any interference in the said order. 9. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the Bank has its own Service Regulation named as Service Rules of Bihar Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Limited, Patna duly approved by the Registrar Co-operative on 29.08.1996 to be effective from 15.08.1996. 9. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the Bank has its own Service Regulation named as Service Rules of Bihar Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Limited, Patna duly approved by the Registrar Co-operative on 29.08.1996 to be effective from 15.08.1996. According to the said Service Regulation, the Bank is competent to initiate departmental inquiry and pass orders even after retirement of its employees and is at liberty to forfeit even retirement benefits and recover the loss from the amount payable to such employees. Clause 132 of the said Rules provides as follows:- “ Without prejudice to provision of other rules an employee who commits a breach of the rules of the Bank or who displays negligence, in-efficiency or indolence or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interests of the Bank or in conflict with its instruction or who commits a breach of discipline or his quality of any other misconduct, shall be liable to the following penalties:- a) Reprimand or censure. b) Withholding of increment with or without commutative effect promotion, including stoppage at an efficiency bar. c) Reduction to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale. d) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by the employee due to his negligence or breach of order. e) Removal from service (not to be disqualified for future employment). f) Dismissal from service which ordinary disqualified for future employment. In this service Rule of Bihar State co-operative Land Development Bank Samiti, Patna, the existing Rule 132 shall be renumbered as sub-rule (i) and after sub-rule (i) as so renumbered the following rule shall be inserted, namely- (ii) If the Bank suffers any pecuniary loss due to fault, negligence, in-efficiency or breach of Rules and instructions of the Bank by an employee who has retired, the Bank shall be at liberty to forfeit his retirement benefit and recover the loss from the amount payable to such employee provided that if the Bank decides to withhold payment of retirement benefits during pendency of the departmental enquiry or in contemplation of departmental enquiry, then the same will not be treated as punishment.” 10. In the said circumstances, the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules, especially Rule 43(b) thereof, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case even if the departmental proceeding was initiated by the authorities of the Bank before the retirement of the petitioner and culminated into the impugned order after his retirement. 11. A perusal of the order of a Bench of this court dated 16.05.2001 passed in CWJC No.60 of 2000 clearly shows that while setting aside the earlier order of termination against the petitioner, liberty was given to the respondents to take fresh decision after issuing a notice to the petitioner and hence the respondents authorities complied the said order and took all the necessary steps in that regard as per the provisions of law and also as per the directions of this Court and passed the impugned order after considering each and every aspect of the matter in detail. 12. It may be noted that earlier the service of the petitioner was terminated, but after remand from the High Court, the authorities concerned again considered the matter in detail, including the stand taken by the petitioner and the materials on record and only thereafter found the petitioner guilty for the charges, especially for putting the Bank to loss due to non-recovery or under recovery of loans affecting further lending activities of the Bank and hence it had a far reaching effect also on the payment of salaries to the employees and officers and also affected the broader public interest. 13. However, for such a huge loss to the respondent-Bank a small punishment had been given to the petitioner of withholding his salary only from 07.09.1999 to 20.06.2011, during which period the petitioner had also not worked. Considering the aforementioned matters in their entirety, this Court does not find any procedural irregularity committed by the respondents. 14. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any requirement for interference of this Court nor does it find any illegality in the impugned order of the authority concerned. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.