ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Addl. Advocate General No. 13, who has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Sri S.S.Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of remaining respondents/Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’). 2. The petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of an order, issued vide memo no. 3876 dated 20-10-2005 by the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (Annexure ‘4’ to the writ petition), whereby, the petitioner was inflicted a punishment of withholding of 2% pension for five years. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of memo no. 1467 dated 04-10-2007 (Annexure ‘6’ to the writ petition), whereby, he was denied honorarium. 3. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner was earlier proceeded departmentally on the charge of disobeying the order of the superior officer. It was alleged that though he had received an office order dated 03-03-2001 through which, he was directed to carry admit cards etc. to the District Education Officer, Chapra, in connection with the Annual Secondary School Examination 2001, he proceeded on un-authorised leave, which caused obstruction, amounting to disobedience of the order and indiscipline. In the departmental proceeding, charges were found proved against the petitioner, however; the inquiry officer had reported that certain documents were required to be examined. However, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment on 13-08-2001, which was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by filing a writ petition, vide C.W.J.C. No. 8409 of 2003, which was disposed of on 07-03-2005. This Court quashed the order of punishment as well as order of the appellate authority, however; liberty was granted to the respondents/Board to proceed in the matter afresh from the stage of the enquiry report, wherein, it was indicated that the disciplinary authority should go through the original file of the leave of the petitioner before taking decision in the case. After the order of this Court, a fresh order has been passed, vide Annexure ‘4’ to the writ petition, which has been assailed in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that due to the reason that the petitioner was seriously ill, he did not carry out order of the superior officer, as he was advised by the doctor for “rest”. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that due to the reason that the petitioner was seriously ill, he did not carry out order of the superior officer, as he was advised by the doctor for “rest”. He further submits that order impugned is in violation of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Pension Rules’). He submits that neither the charge against the petitioner was such a serious nor there was any allegation of financial lapses and as such, after retirement of the petitioner, order impugned was not required to be passed. In support of his argument, he has heavily relied on a single bench judgment of this Court, reported in 2000(1) PLJR 123 (SAHDEO SAHU -Vrs.- THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.) and also on 2005(1) PLRJ 68 (ASHA SINHA -Vrs.- THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS). While referring to Sahdeo Sahu's case (supra), he has specifically referred to paragraph no. 8 of the judgment. For just decision in the matter, it would be appropriate to quote the same, which is as follows:- “8. Under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the State Government is clothed with power to withhold or withdraw pension or part thereof, permanently or for a specific period. It can also order to recover pension whole or part, if any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the petitioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Govt. by misconduct or negligence. If proceeding is not initiated prior to the retirement, after retirement such proceeding can be initiated by the State but only in respect of charges which are of within four years of the date of initiation of proceeding. However, under sub-rule (a) below explanation to the Rule 43(b), departmental proceeding initiated during the service period shall be deemed to be a proceeding initiated under Rule 43(b). For the purpose of passing an order under Rule 43(b), it is also mandatory to consult B.P.S.C. before passing final order.” 5. In Asha Sinha’s case (supra), he has referred to paragraph no. 7, which is quoted here-in-below:- “7. For the purpose of passing an order under Rule 43(b), it is also mandatory to consult B.P.S.C. before passing final order.” 5. In Asha Sinha’s case (supra), he has referred to paragraph no. 7, which is quoted here-in-below:- “7. For initiating a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, there must be charge alleging pecuniary loss to the government and the same must be proved unless the employee concerned is found guilty of misconduct and to have caused pecuniary loss to the government, no order of punishment for withholding or withdrawing pension or any part of it permanently or for specified period or for recovery from the pension of whole or part of pecuniary loss can be passed. In the present case no charge was framed alleging pecuniary loss to the government and it has not been proved that State has been suffered any pecuniary loss on account of grave misconduct or negligence of the petitioner. In the punishment order also it has not been stated in specific terms. Since no such charge was framed against the petitioner in the proceeding as such he cannot be awarded punishment for recovery from his pension of the pecuniary loss suffered by the State. It is also apparent that the alleged occurrence is of the year 1984-85 as such a proceeding could not have been initiated against the petitioner under section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules for any occurrence after 4 years of the occurrence. On consideration of the entire material it can be held to be a case of irregularity for which the proceeding under Rule 43(b) is not permissible under the law.” 6. On the aforesaid ground, he has argued that since the petitioner had already retired on 31-01-2005, the order impugned after his retirement was unwarranted and contrary to the statutory provision. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/Board has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that while examination was going on, the disobedience by the petitioner to carry out the direction amounts to serious misconduct and as such, under 1st part of Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules, the order impugned may not be interfered with. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Prima facie, the Court is satisfied that after retirement of the petitioner without establishing a case of serious misconduct or an allegation of causing pecuniary loss to the Board, there was no reason for imposing punishment as has been done, vide Annexure ‘4’ to the writ petition. The Court is conscious that while exercising power of judicial review, this Court may not examine the case on merit. Though on merit, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that due to the reason, which was beyond the control of the petitioner, he had not gone to Chapra, but fact remains that order impugned is contrary to Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. The present case is squarely covered by the two decisions of this Court, which have been referred in the preceding paragraphs of this order. 9. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner may not be differentiated from aforesaid two cases and accordingly, the order impugned i.e. memo no. 3876 dated 20-10-2005 of the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (Annexure ‘4’ to the writ petition) is, hereby, set aside with a direction to the respondent/Board to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 10. So far as relief sought for vide Annexure ‘6’ to the writ petition regarding grant of honorarium is concerned, since the petitioner had not gone to Chapra, he was not entitled to claim honorarium. Accordingly, second relief sought for in the writ petition is not tenable. 11. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands partly allowed.