Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by initiation of the departmental proceeding vide Memo No. 893(S) WE dated 6th February 2012 issued by the respondent no. 2 -the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereunder, disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him after his retirement on 31st May 2009 for an event which is alleged to have taken place in the year 2005-06. 3. During the pendency of the writ application, petitioner was imposed with a punishment of withholding of 20% of pension in such proceeding after giving second show-cause notice through notification no. 12628(S) dated 9th December 2013 passed by the respondent no. 2. Consequential order has been issued on 20th January 2014 to the Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand to direct the concerned treasury for withholding of 20% of pension of the petitioner. These subsequent developments have also been challenged by the petitioner through I.A. No. 1148/2014 which was permitted by order dated 21st March 2014. 4. The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, retired on 31st May 2009 has assailed the impugned proceeding and punishment on the ground that they are relating to an event which took place more than four years from the date of initiation of the proceeding i.e. 6th February 2012. The same is therefore impermissible in view of the specific provisions of rule 43(b) proviso a (ii) of Jharkhand Pension Rules. On these issues, judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & others vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari [(1995) Supp 3 (SCC) 56, para-7 thereof has been relied by the counsel for the petitioner. Another judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & others [WPS No. 577/2011 dated 04.07.2011] has also been relied. By referring to the statements made at para-14 of the writ petition and charge sheet at annexure-2, it is pointed out that the alleged event was in relation to the Agreement No. 2F2/2005-2006 and obviously the charge arising in relation to that, was much beyond the prescribed period of four years from the date of initiation of the proceeding. Therefore, the impugned proceeding and punishment are bad in law and are fit to be quashed. 5. Therefore, the impugned proceeding and punishment are bad in law and are fit to be quashed. 5. Respondents have defended the initiation of the proceeding and punishment on the grounds that the conduct of the petitioner in relation to the execution of the work and payment of bitumen through fake vouchers for agreement of 2005-06 were detected and the petitioner's act had resulted in payment of a sum of Rs. 22.34 lakhs (approximately) to the contractor in a irregular manner. The same was in violation of the service rules of 1976 as also the Bihar Public Works Code, para-30 to 33 and also the Circular of 30th March 1982. It is submitted that the proceeding was initiated under the orders of His Excellency the Governor of Jharkhand and does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner has participated in the proceeding and after serving second show-cause, the impugned punishment has been imposed upon him which needs no interference. Counsel for the respondent State however, has not been able to meet the categorical assertion as made at para-14 of the writ petition that the event for which charge was framed took place beyond four years of the date of initiation of the proceeding i.e. 6th February 2012. Statements made at para-14 of the writ petition have been replied evasively at para-17 of the counter affidavit. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and on perusal of the relevant materials on record, it appears on the face of the record that the event for which the petitioner has been proceeded against after his retirement on 31st May 2009, is of the year 2005-2006. Though, it appears from the petitioner's reply at Annexure-4 that such an anomaly were detected in course of audit inspection in 2007-08, but again, the said period is also beyond four years of the date of initiation of the proceeding. The provisions of rule 43(b) proviso a(ii) of Jharkhand Pension Rules stipulates that the departmental proceeding shall be instituted in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. 7. In the instant case, proceeding appears to have been initiated much after the period of four years from the date of event. 7. In the instant case, proceeding appears to have been initiated much after the period of four years from the date of event. The issue relating to consideration of rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules were earlier examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & others (supra). The opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is contained at para-7 thereof, which reads 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 Rule 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. 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. The respondent also, therefore, did not rely upon the said notice dated 17-10-1987 but initiated fresh departmental inquiry by the impugned notice dated 27-9-1993. Consequently it is not open to the learned advocate for the appellant to rely upon the said earlier notice dated 17-10-1987.” 8. The respondent also, therefore, did not rely upon the said notice dated 17-10-1987 but initiated fresh departmental inquiry by the impugned notice dated 27-9-1993. Consequently it is not open to the learned advocate for the appellant to rely upon the said earlier notice dated 17-10-1987.” 8. The exercise of powers under the said provision for withholding of pension of the petitioner after his retirement has failed to meet the statutory benchmark laid down under the said provision as interpreted by the Apex Court. Similar view has been held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Singh (Supra) while quashing the impugned order of punishment of withholding of pension under rule 43(b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules in respect of an event which took place beyond four years of the date of initiation of the proceeding. In such circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned proceeding has culminated into the order of punishment. Therefore, the impugned notification dated 9th December 2013 as contained in Memo no. 12628(S) (Annexure-9) is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner.