ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- "For quashing the officer order of the General Administrative Department, Govt. of Bihar contained in Memo No. 2306 dated 15.06.2010 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary to the Govt., whereby and whereunder, the petitioner cent percent pension has been forfeited under the provision of Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rule, inter alia following:- (i) Memo No. 2306 dated 15.06.2010 issued under the Patna High Court CWJC No.8800 of 2012 (5) dt. 01-05-2013 signature of the Deputy Secretary, General Administrative Department, be set aside. (ii) Enquiry Report dated 21.12.2009 submitted under the hand of the Enquiry Officer (respondent no. 6) be declared as illegal, non-est and accordingly be quashed. (iii) Respondents be directed to make payment of the petitioner's pension with all consequential and ancillary benefits. (iv) Respondents be directed to release the entire outstanding amount in favour of the petitioner as became due in lieu of pensionary benefits till the issuance of the impugned order dated 15.06.2010. (v) Respondents be directed to pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioner.” 3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer has submitted that the impugned order of punishment withholding the entire hundred percent pension of the petitioner dated 15.06.2010 is bad because the proceeding under Rule 43B of Bihar Pension Rules which was initiated against the petitioner was without sanction accorded to the State Government. He has further submitted that the charge-sheet for the said proceeding which was issued to the petitioner was reproduction of the old charge-sheet which had already been quashed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the impugned order on the ground of non-supply of the inquiry report. He has also submitted that the impugned order was passed by the incompetent authority and that too without obtaining approval of the Bihar Public Service Commission as required by proviso to Rule-43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the impugned order on the ground of non-supply of the inquiry report. He has also submitted that the impugned order was passed by the incompetent authority and that too without obtaining approval of the Bihar Public Service Commission as required by proviso to Rule-43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that none of the aforesaid issues raised by learned counsel for the petitioner would require any detailed consideration, inasmuch as, the charge-sheet and the order would speak for themselves that the proceedings under Rule-43(B) of Bihar Pension Rules was initiated under the orders of the State Government and the impugned order was also passed by the State Government. He has further submitted that in fact repeated attempts were made to serve the copy of the inquiry report on the petitioner and when the inquiry report sent to him under Registered post on 15.03.2010 on the address which was given by the petitioner himself did not return back the authorities after giving him further opportunity on 06.05.2010 had proceeded to pass the final order which has been impugned herein. This Court on an earlier occasion having noticed the aforementioned submission of learned counsel for the petitioner specially with regard to non service of the report has called for the original file and records and the learned counsel for the State has very fairly produced the Government file no. 16 S.S.3-03/2002 in which the impugned order has been passed and also issued to the petitioner. A bare perusal of the aforesaid file would go to show that the approval of the State Government was obtained for continuing with the proceedings. 6. This Court at the outset must clarify the "approval" of State Government for initiating a proceeding is no magic word in terms of Rule-43(B) of Bihar Pension Rules. In the present case there was approval duly accorded by the State Government and as such the issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any substance. 6. This Court at the outset must clarify the "approval" of State Government for initiating a proceeding is no magic word in terms of Rule-43(B) of Bihar Pension Rules. In the present case there was approval duly accorded by the State Government and as such the issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any substance. As with regard to the order passed by the incompetent authority, this Court has perused the materials on record and apart from the fact that the order records itself to have been passed by the State Government itself, it also goes to show that after receipt of the inquiry report the matter was placed in the General Administration Department and the matter was placed before the Chief-Minister on 06.01.2010 relating to the proposed punishment and thereafter the impugned order of punishment was issued. In that view of the matter, it also cannot be said that the impugned order is without any jurisdiction and/or passed by any incompetent authority. 7 As with regard to obtaining approval of the Bihar Public Service Commission, the submission of Mr. Verma seems to be wholly misconceived. Rule-43(b) only lays down that the procedure for inflicting punishment of either withholding pension or recovery of the amount of any pecuniary loss the same procedure as that of inflicting major penalty to a government servant has to be followed. Major penalty to a government servant in terms of Bihar Government Servant Classification Control and Appeal Rules 2005 is not only dismissal from service but there are also other punishment which have been clarified as major penalty. Even stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty. However the requirement of approval of the Commission is only when the punishment of dismissal has to be passed. For inflicting any other major punishment, the approval of the Commission is not required and therefore, when the petitioner could have, had he been continuing in service, imposed any other major punishment even without approval of the Commission, this Court would not find that the impugned order withholding pension of the petitioner and reducing it to zero would require concurrence or approval of the Bihar Public Service Commission. Rule-43(b) of Bihar Pension Rues cannot be stretched to that extent even withholding of one per cent of pension would amount to dismissal from service. 8. Rule-43(b) of Bihar Pension Rues cannot be stretched to that extent even withholding of one per cent of pension would amount to dismissal from service. 8. That would leave this Court to consider only one other aspect namely prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of non-supply of inquiry report. After the inquiry report was received it was sent to the petitioner under registered post on his last known address on 01.02.2010. That registered letter had however, returned back whereafter the petitioner himself gave in writing disclosing his new address where he was residing. The next letter under registered post dated 15.03.2010 was sent to the petitioner on that very changed address and when no reply was received from the petitioner another letter was also sent on 06.05.2010. There is no material in the file to show about the service of the registered letter dated 15.03.2010 and in fact the petitioner having received the next notice by way of reminder on 06.05.2010 on that very address had submitted his application on 20.05.2010, wherein, he has stated that he has not received the inquiry report along with letter dated 06.05.2010. In fact the letter dated 06.05.2010 even otherwise was not containing the inquiry report. The enquiry report was in fact enclosed with the earlier letter dated 15.03.2010. The said application of the petitioner dated 20.05.2010 complaining the non-service of the inquiry report was available in the department on 24.05.2010 but it appears that after its being tagged in the file on 25.07.2010 because the file in the meantime had already been sent to the Chief-Minister on 06.05.2010 and the Chief-Minister had thereafter passed the order on 01.06.2010. Thus the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to non-service of the report could not be noticed by the authorities on account of movement of file. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, who is a retired Government Servant and whose pension has been reduced to Zero on account of misconduct found to have been proved against him would be entitled for one more opportunity for explaining his view point in respect of the findings recorded by the inquiry officer. Since, the petitioner has already retired from service, for him the provision of Bihar Pension Rules by itself becomes the sheet anchor and in the Bihar Pension Rules once the provision for following the procedure for major penalty is to be followed supply of inquiry report even to a pensioner become condition precedent for being inflicted any punishment either with regard to withholding of pension or recovery of the amount. 10. In view of the above, this Court is also of the view that non-service of the inquiry report to the petitioner has definitely prejudiced him, inasmuch as, his pension has been reduced to Zero even without giving him adequate opportunity of explaining after submission of the inquiry report. The purpose of service of inquiry report and opportunity to delinquent by way of its service is now well established and reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar and Ors, reported in 1993(4) SCC 727 . 11. Thus having regard to the aforesaid settled position in law that service of enquiry report is mandatory before inflicting any punishment and this Court from the connected file and materials on record has not found any proof of service of inquiry report to the petitioner, may be primarily on account of his changed address it would allow one more opportunity to him to place his view point against the finding in the inquiry report. 12. The impugned order of punishment is accordingly, quashed and the matter is remitted back to the State Government to reconsider the issue as with regard to inflicting punishment to the petitioner in the light of the explanation furnished by the petitioner to the findings in the enquiry report. Since, the petitioner has already obtained a copy of the inquiry report under Right to Information Act there would be no need to serve him a fresh copy of the inquiry report. The petitioner is directed to file his comment/reaction to the inquiry report, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order whereafter the State Government must pass its reasoned order after considering the issue raised by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such explanation of the petitioner. 13. 13. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of.