ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 18th October 2011 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 9332 of 2010. 2. The appellant, a retired government servant, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in above CWJC No. 9332 of 2010 to challenge the decision of the State Government to allow 75% of the pay and allowances to the appellant during the period of his suspension from service. The challenge has failed before the learned single Judge. Therefore, this Appeal. 3. The facts leading to the present Appeal are that the appellant joined the service of the Government of Bihar in 1973. In course of time, he came to be promoted as Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar. On reaching the age of superannuation, the appellant was retired from service on 31st May 2008. 4. In 2006, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant for the acts of misconduct amounting to insubordination, using unparliamentary language, abuse of power, financial irregularity and for acting in irresponsible manner. Pending the disciplinary proceeding, the appellant was placed under suspension on 24th January 2006. The said order of suspension was revoked on 29th April 2008. Of the several charges levelled against the appellant, the only charge proved against the appellant was that of using unparliamentary language and the charge of acting irresponsibly was held to be partially proved. Pursuant to the said finding of guilt recorded against the appellant, under order dated 30th March 2008, he was visited with punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. 5. Pursuant to the said punishment imposed upon the appellant, on 26th May 2008 the appellant was given a notice under Rule 11(5) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2005 Rules”). The appellant was called upon to file representation, if any, against the decision of the State Government to treat the period of suspension as the period spent under suspension and to allow him 75% of the salary for the period of suspension. The said notice was duly answered by the appellant. The appellant was called upon to file representation, if any, against the decision of the State Government to treat the period of suspension as the period spent under suspension and to allow him 75% of the salary for the period of suspension. The said notice was duly answered by the appellant. After receipt of the representation made by the appellant, under order dated 19th March 2010, the period of suspension was treated as such and the appellant was allowed 75% of the salary for the said period. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid notice dated 26th May 2008, the appellant had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 15309 of 2009. The said petition came to be disposed of on 2nd December 2009. The Court made order as under:- “After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner moulds his submission to urge that the petitioner proposes to go in appeal on the issue of quantum of punishment only. The writ petition is dismissed on merits. If the petitioner files an appeal limited to the question of quantum of punishment only, the domain of the executive, it is expected that the same shall be considered in accordance with law.” Thus, it is apparent that the appellant gave up his challenge to the aforesaid notice dated 26th May 2008 and instead chose to challenge the order of punishment on the point of question of quantum alone. In other words, the appellant did not challenge the disciplinary proceeding or the finding of guilt. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Singh has appeared for the appellant. His challenge to the order dated 19th March 2010 is based on the fact that the said order was made after the appellant retired from service on 31st May 2000. In the submission of Mr. Singh, once the appellant had retired from service, the relationship of master and servant with the Government had come to an end. No order adverse to the appellant thereafter could have been made by the State Government. He has also submitted that the State Government does have the power to continue the proceeding even after retirement of a government servant. However, in the present case, the State Government did not exercise the said power and did not continue the disciplinary proceeding after the appellant retired from government service. Mr. He has also submitted that the State Government does have the power to continue the proceeding even after retirement of a government servant. However, in the present case, the State Government did not exercise the said power and did not continue the disciplinary proceeding after the appellant retired from government service. Mr. Singh has also submitted that the appellant has not been allowed annual increments during the period of his suspension. The appellant has thus suffered the punishment of withholding of increments and now the appellant has not been allowed full salary for the period of suspension. The appellant has thus suffered double jeopardy. In support to his submission, Mr. Singh has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. & Ors. [ (1999) 3 SCC 666 ]. 8. We may, at the outset, note that the aforesaid judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case. It was the case where the disciplinary proceeding was continued after retirement of a servant of the Orissa State Financial Corporation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations did not empower the Corporation to continue the disciplinary proceeding after the retirement of its servant. 9. In the present case, we must note that the disciplinary proceeding was completed before the appellant retired from service. The order of punishment was made on 30th March 2008, a month before the appellant retired from service on 31st May 2008. The question of continuing the disciplinary proceeding after retirement did not arise. 10. The notice dated 26th May 2008 issued under Rule 11 of the 2005 Rules is a mere consequence of the order of punishment. Rule 11 of the 2005 Rules enjoins the Government to make order in respect of pay and allowances to be paid to the government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or his retirement on superannuation. In the present case, the order of suspension was revoked on 29th April 2008 and the appellant had been restored in service. Thus, it was the duty of the State Government to make order in respect of the period spent under suspension. Any order made under Rule 11 of the 2005 Rules is a mere consequence of a disciplinary proceeding and revocation of the order of suspension. Thus, it was the duty of the State Government to make order in respect of the period spent under suspension. Any order made under Rule 11 of the 2005 Rules is a mere consequence of a disciplinary proceeding and revocation of the order of suspension. It is not a punishment in itself. In view of the punishment imposed upon the appellant, if the State Government in its discretion decided to treat the period of suspension as such and to pay 75% of the salary for the said period, such discretion does not call for interference by this Court. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed.