Order The petitioner prays for quashing of the departmental proceeding initiated on 12.4.2012 and consequential order of punishment, dated 8.1.2014, whereby against a loss of total amount of Rs. 23,01,942.41/- a sum of Rs. 11,50,971/- has been directed to be recovered from his salary/pensionary benefits under the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (in short ‘the Rules’). 2. It appears that the petitioner was proceeded departmentally on 12.4.2012 under the Rules and was subjected to different charges. Charges against the petitioner was that on account of slackness, he being an Electrical Executive Engineer, Gaya Urban Electric Supply Division, Gaya from September, 2001 to December, 2004, did not take steps for filing of the certificate cases against electrical consumers who had defaulted in making the payment of power causing a loss of Rs.23,01,942.41 for 2001 to 2004. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, Gaya Urban Electric Supply Division, Urban Gaya. On the merits, the case of the petitioner is that the responsibility cannot entirely be saddled on him for non filing of certificate cases, which according to respondent Company caused a loss of Rs.23,01,942.41. 4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that particularly it was primarily the duty of the Accountant (Revenue) for initiating Certificate proceeding for the realization of outstanding dues in order to avoid recovery of dues becoming time barred. Further, there is no regulation of fixing such responsibility on the relevant Electrical Executive Engineer. He submits that the other officials including Sri S.P. Singh who were also posted in Gaya would be as much responsible as the petitioner. 5. Apart from the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding drawn by the respondents is not maintainable in view of Rule 43(b)(a)(ii) of the Rules which states that such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. It appears that the Company vide order dated 1.8.2007 sought an explanation from the petitioner with respect to his slackness in not filing the certificate case resulting into the loss of Rs.23,193.41 to the Company. The petitioner submitted his reply. It appears that the Company vide order dated 1.8.2007 sought an explanation from the petitioner with respect to his slackness in not filing the certificate case resulting into the loss of Rs.23,193.41 to the Company. The petitioner submitted his reply. The reply of the petitioner remained pending for long. The Company, after sometime, not finding the reply satisfactory, decided to initiate a departmental proceeding vide resolution no. 1214 dated 12.6.2012. 6. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the Company submits that the audit of revenue accounts of Electric Supply Division, Gaya (Urban) and its Sub-Divisions was conducted for the period of 1999-2000 to 2000-2001(test check) and 2001-2002 and 2003-2004(detail audit) and it transpired that on account of slackness of the petitioner and other officials in not taking timely action for recovery of Rs.23,01,942.41, the realization of the said amount became time barred. The Company sought a show cause vide its letter dated 1.8.2007 and considering the reply of the petitioner devoid of merit asked an explanation under Rule 139 of the Rules was issued vide Resolution no.19 dated 8.1.2010 which proceeding was dropped. 7. However, as the petitioner had retired on 31.7.2008, the departmental proceeding was drawn against him vide Resolution No.809 dated 12.4.2012 under Rule 43(b) of the Rules. Finding the charges established in the enquiry report, second show cause was issued to the petitioner on 17.5.2013 and after examining the reply of the petitioner thereof, realization of a sum of Rs. 11,50,971/- was ordered from pensionary benefits of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Rules. However, the part of the loss proportionately apportioned for being realized from other employees depending upon their culpability. He further states that recovery of the 50% of the total loss was ordered from one Sri S.P. Singh, Electrical Executive Engineer (Retd). Referring to paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the Company stated that proportionate recovery was also ordered from other employees of the Company. 8. The submission of Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the Company is noted to be rejected. From bare perusal of ‘Explanation’ to Rule 43(b) it is evident that for the purpose of the rule, a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted. It is not a case that complaint was filed or petitioner was put under suspension. 9. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the Company is noted to be rejected. From bare perusal of ‘Explanation’ to Rule 43(b) it is evident that for the purpose of the rule, a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted. It is not a case that complaint was filed or petitioner was put under suspension. 9. Rule 43(b) reads as follows:- 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. 10. From bare perusal of explanation to Proviso 43(a), a departmental proceeding would be deemed to have been instituted when the charges are framed. In the instant case, charges have been framed on 12.4.2012 and as such the departmental proceeding would be deemed to have commenced only on 12.4.2012. As per Rule 43(b), in case a Government servant has retired, a departmental proceeding shall not be in respect of an event, which took place more than four years before the institution of such proceeding, if not already initiated. Thus, I find that the departmental proceeding initiated on 12.4.2012 was time barred as it is with respect to an event, which has taken place more than four years prior to the institution of the departmental proceeding. It is not a case of respondents that any judicial proceeding was initiated against him within the meaning of explanation (b) of Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules. 11. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the Company that the impugned proceeding is not in violation of the provisions under Rule 43(b) of the Rules is devoid of merit and is rejected. In the result, the departmental proceeding and consequential order of punishment is quashed. 11. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the Company that the impugned proceeding is not in violation of the provisions under Rule 43(b) of the Rules is devoid of merit and is rejected. In the result, the departmental proceeding and consequential order of punishment is quashed. However, as loss of public money is involved in the matter, it would be open for the Company to take any other action against the petitioner under the law. The petitioner would not be entitled to any interest on the amount payable consequent to quashing of the proceeding. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.