JUDGMENT: By Court.-The petitioner superannuated from Government service w.e.f. 31.1.1996. His final pension was already sanctioned on 22.12.1995. However, when his retiral benefits were not paid to him, he moved the High Court in C.WJ.C. No. 3020 of 1997(R). By order dated 8.7.1998, the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry was directed to issue Sanction Order for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner within two weeks with 10% interest. However, only 90% amount of pension, G.P.F. and group insurance were paid to the petitioner and gratuity, Earned leave, 10% of pension, etc. were not paid and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court again. 2. A counter-affidavit dated 16.4.2001 was filed in which it was pointed out that a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was initiated against the petitioner. No document in support of such statement was placed on record. It was submitted that the petitioner has been made accused in four cases relating to Fodder Scam and charge-sheet was filed. 3. On 14.2.2013, when the matter was listed for hearing, this Court directed the parties to ascertain the position with respect to proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules and pursuant to such direction, the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit dated 28.2.2003 bringing on record the show-cause notice dated 14.1.2008 issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the so-called proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, which allegedly was initiated against the petitioner, was never brought on record. The petitioner was never issued any show-cause notice and no intimation was given to the petitioner with respect to initiation of any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.1.2008 requiring him to show-cause-within one week indicating therein that in terms of Rules 43(a) & (b) of Bihar Pension Rules, why full pension of the petitioner be not withdrawn permanently. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the pensionary benefits of the petitioner cannot be withdrawn by issuing the executive order as contained in 14.1.2008. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State of" Bihar has supported the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the pensionary benefits of the petitioner cannot be withdrawn by issuing the executive order as contained in 14.1.2008. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State of" Bihar has supported the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 6. It is an admitted position that the so-called proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules initiated in the year 2001 never saw the light of the day. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar is also unable to confirm, if any notice was issued to the petitioner before initiating such proceeding in the year 2001. The State of Bihar has sought to initiate another proceeding under Rules 43(a) & (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules by issuing show-cause notice dated 14.1.2008. However, final order, if any passed, h?-s not been brought on record. 7. Rule 43(a) & (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules are extracted below:- "43(a) Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. The Provincial Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it; if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the Provincial Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any• part of a pension under this rule, shall be final and conclusive. The decision of the Provincial Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any• part of a pension under this rule, shall be final and conclusive. (b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: Provided that- (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment; (i) shall not be instituted save with ,the sanction of the State Government; (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made; (b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant • was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause(a); and (c) the Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed, Explanation.-For the purposes of the rule- (a) departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed, against the pensioner are issued to him or, if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted:(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal court; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the complaint is presented, or as the case may be, an• application is made to a civil court." 8. From the bare reading of provisions of Rules 43(a) & (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, it is clear that any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules has to be initiated within a period of four years from the date of the alleged incident and in any case, no proceeding can be started after a period of three years, when the pension has been sanctioned. In the present case, I find that the petitioner has been alleged to have committed misconduct between the period 1995 and 31st February, 1996 and therefore, no proceeding can be initiated against the petitioner in the year 2008. . 9. In the case of "State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari" [reported in 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 56] [ : 1995(2) PLJR (SC)51], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules the departmental proceeding against an employee cannot be initiated with respect to an event which has occurred 4 years prior to the initiation of the departmental proceeding. In para 7 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "7. A mere look at these' provisions shows that before the power under Rule 43(b) can be exercised in connection with the alleged misconduct of a retired Government servant, it must be shown that in departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings the Government servant concerned is found guilty of grave misconduct This is also subject to the rider that such departmental proceedings shall have to be in respect of misconduct which took place not more than four years before the initiation of such proceedings. It is, therefore, apparent that no departmental proceedings could, have been initiated in 1993 against the respondent under Rules 43(a) and (b), in connection with the alleged misconduct as it alleged to have taken place in the year 1986-87. As the alleged misconduct by 1993 was at least six years' old, Rule 43(b) was out of picture. Even the respondent authorities accepted this legal position when they issued notice dated 27.9.1993. It was clearly stated therein that no action can be taken under Rule 43(b) of the Rules as the period of charges has been old by more than four years. Even the respondent authorities accepted this legal position when they issued notice dated 27.9.1993. It was clearly stated therein that no action can be taken under Rule 43(b) of the Rules as the period of charges has been old by more than four years. It is equally not possible for the authorities to• rely on the earlier notice dated 17.10.1987 as proceedings pursuant to it were quashed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 6696 of 1991 and only liberty reserved to the respondent was to start fresh proceedings, The High Court did not permit the respondent to resume- the earlier departmental inquiry pursuant to the notice dated. 17.10.1987 from the stage it got vitiated." 10. Rule 43 of Jharkhand Pension Rules speaks of pension of an employee. Rule 27 says that pension includes gratuity. Thus, beyond pension and gratuity, nothing would be covered under Rule 43 of the Pension Rules. Leave Encashment is paid on account of unutilized leave and therefore, it partakes the character of salary. Under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, salary of the petitioner cannot be withheld or, withdrawn or, forfeited. In the case of "Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha vs. State of Bihar and Others" [reported in (1999) 3 PLJR 949] it has been held that leave encashment dues cannot be withheld because it is paid in lieu of un utilized leave. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of "Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand and Others" [reported in 2007(4) JCR 1 (Jhr.)] has also taken note of and approved the judgment in the case of "Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha vs. State of Bihar and Others" [reported in (1999)3 PLJR 949]. 11. On a consideration of materials on record and in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the present writ petition de-serves to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed.