ORDER By The Court - In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for an appropriate writ/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the memo no. 1272 dated 13.04.2012 (Annexure-7), whereby 50% pension of the petitioner has been directed to be deducted for next five years. 2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that, the petitioner was appointed as Circle Inspector and while he was posted in Ranchi, he recommended for mutation of land of Khata No. 208/210/205 and Khata No. 312, 313, 314, 315 and 316 of village Kadru and out of the said khata the petitioner was charge-sheeted for recommending for mutation of the land of Khata No. 314 of village Kadru. Thereafter, the then Additional Collector Sri Sunil Kumar Singh was made enquiry officer to enquire into the matter and the enquiry report was submitted. Though the enquiry report was submitted on 19.05.2008, the Government after two years of submission of the enquiry report asked the petitioner to file his show cause. After receipt of the show cause, the petitioner filed his reply on 14.05.2010. The petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka on 30.04.2010. Vide memo no. 1272 dated 13.04.2012 (Annexure-7), 50% pension of the petitioner has been directed to be deducted for next five years. The said order was never made available to the petitioner and only when the petitioner had approached this Court for payment of retiral benefit amount in W.P. (S) No. 5239 of 2010, which is still pending, the respondent made submission before the Hon'ble High Court in the said writ application regarding the said punishment order. The petitioner came to know about the same and thereafter, petitioner applied before the respondent no.2 for grant of said punishment order dated 13.04.2012. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, learned J.C. to S.C. V. for the respondents-State. 4. Mr. 3. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, learned J.C. to S.C. V. for the respondents-State. 4. Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that since the petitioner has retired from the service on 30.04.2010 and no proceeding has been initiated or the said proceeding has been converted as per the Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rule and as such the entire process as adopted by the respondents is novel under the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the objection raised by the petitioner and without providing the documents as demanded by the petitioner in his show cause reply dated 14.05.2010, the respondent authority vide letter no. 2086 dated 28.07.2010 asked the petitioner to submit his final show cause reply and in pursuance to the said letter, the petitioner submitted his reply on 31.8.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment order of deduction of 50 per cent pension of the petitioner for a period of five years against the petitioner has been passed without providing proper opportunity to the petitioner and without giving proper hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the person who has framed charge against the petitioner has been made enquiry officer in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding which has been initiated against the petitioner is just before the retirement of the petitioner and even after retirement the proceeding was continuing against the petitioner without converting the same under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rule and therefore, the entire proceeding is illegal in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of withholding 50% of pension is without jurisdiction in view of the fact that although the departmental proceeding had been initiated under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, but the impugned order has been passed under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The impugned order has been passed by the State Government under Rule 139 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, who has got no jurisdiction to pass such order. The impugned order has been passed by the State Government under Rule 139 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, who has got no jurisdiction to pass such order. The authority, who has been empowered to sanction pension, has been vested with such power and the State Government has got power to revise the order passed by the sanctioning authority under Rule 139 (c) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the proceeding had been initiated under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the same cannot be converted into Rule 139 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules for the purpose of inflicting punishment because Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules speaks with respect to commission of misconduct and the order of withholding any amount of pension depends upon the finding of the disciplinary authority regarding the misconduct committed by the delinquent employee with certain limitations, as contained in proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, whereas Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules speaks for taking a decision for withholding the amount of pension, if the service of the delinquent employee has not been found thoroughly satisfactory. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Bihar and others v. Md. Idris Ansari reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, repelling the contentions made in the writ application. Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, learned J.C. to S.C. V. for the respondents-State has vociferously submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order in view of the fact that the authority has taken decision on the basis of the fact that the service of the petitioner was not found thoroughly satisfactory, as such the authority has got power under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules to inflict punishment of withholding any part of pension. It has been submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is very serious, as such the authority has taken right decision for withholding 50% of pension for the next five years. It has been submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is very serious, as such the authority has taken right decision for withholding 50% of pension for the next five years. It has been further submitted that a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was initiated against the petitioner and the enquiry officer had given the finding against the petitioner, as such on the basis of the finding given by the conducting officer, the authority has passed the impugned order. 6. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to refer to the provisions, as contained in Rule 43(b), Rule 139(a), (b) and (c) of the Bihar Pension Rules, which are being quoted herein below: "43(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 proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have cussed 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 reemployment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a); and (c) Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed." "139 (a) The full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. (c) The State Government reserve to themselves the powers of revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. No such power shall however, be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, nor any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed." 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to demonstrate foundational facts and law to make out a case for interference due to the reasons stated herein below : - (i) It has been specifically provided under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules that a departmental proceeding, if not instituted in course of service of a Government employee, that will be deemed to be a departmental proceeding even after retirement of the delinquent employee for the purpose of imposing punishment of withholding of part or full amount of pension, subject to certain limitations, as contained in proviso to Rule 43(b). (ii) Foremost requirement under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is that there must be pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during his service. (iii) Under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, it has been provided that if the service of a delinquent employee is not found to be thoroughly satisfactory, the sanctioning authority of pension has got power to make reduction in the amount of pension. (iii) Under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, it has been provided that if the service of a delinquent employee is not found to be thoroughly satisfactory, the sanctioning authority of pension has got power to make reduction in the amount of pension. Under Rule 139(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the State Government has been vested with the revisional power against the order passed by the sanctioning authority, subject to limitation of 3 years from the date of the order of the sanctioning authority by providing a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension. (iv). From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that although the charges have been found to be proved by the enquiry officer, but merely on the ground that no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government, the State Government has not imposed punishment under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. However, in exercise of power conferred under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the impugned order has been passed to reduce 50% pension for next five years with immediate effect. (v) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that although the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 22.10.2005, but since he retired on 30.4.2010, the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules is deemed to have been converted under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, but merely on the ground that no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government, the authorities have not imposed punishment under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, rather impugned order has been passed under Rule 139(b) of the Pension Rules, which cannot be said to be an order passed in accordance with law because a proceeding initiated under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is a self-contained proceeding and if the authorities come to the conclusion that the delinquent employees has committed grave misconduct, the State Government has power to withhold pension under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. (vi) But if the service of an employee is not found to be thoroughly satisfactory, the sanctioning authority has got power to inflict punishment of reduction in pension under Rule 139(b) and thereafter Rule 139(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules confers power on the State Government to exercise the revisional power against the decision taken by the sanctioning authority under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, subject to other conditions as contained in Rule 139(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules. (vii) It is settled legal proposition that if a proceeding has been initiated or not completed in course of service under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the same cannot be converted under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, rather the same will be deemed to have been converted under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, as has already been held in Shambhu Saran v. State of Bihar reported in 2000(1) PLJR 665 (FB), wherein at Paragraph-8 it has been held as follows : "8.... ... ...In our opinion, once such proceeding is started, even if the person concerned retires from service, such proceeding can be continued and it is not required that there must be any Government order to that effect before it can be allowed to continue.... ... ...." (viii) In the instant case, although the respondents had completed the proceeding under the proviso of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, but subsequently had taken recourse of the provision of Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules on the ground that since there is no pecuniary loss, no decision can be taken against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. (ix) But this fact is not in dispute in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court on 31.1.2014 in L.P.A No. 79/2013, wherein at Paragraph-13 it has been held as follows : "13. We accordingly hold that applicability of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules cannot be restricted only to the cases in which pecuniary loss has been suffered by the Government." (x) Thus, the respondents instead of proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, have taken recourse of Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. We accordingly hold that applicability of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules cannot be restricted only to the cases in which pecuniary loss has been suffered by the Government." (x) Thus, the respondents instead of proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, have taken recourse of Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. (xi) The main argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when once the Government has initiated a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, can the order of punishment be passed under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. This issue has also been settled, as would be evident from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Ors. v. Md. Idris Ansari reported in 1995 (2) PLJR (SC) 51, has observed as follows: "So far as the ground was concerned on a conjoint reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139(a) there is no escape from the conclusion that as the alleged misconduct was committed by the respondent prior to 4 years from the date on which show cause notice dated 27.9.1993 was issued, the appellate authority had no power to invoke Rules 139(a) and (b) against the respondent on the ground of proved misconduct. Consequently, it had to be held that proceedings under Rule 139 were wholly incompetent." (xii) In this connection, reliance may be placed on the judgment rendered in Ram Punit Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2001(2) PLJR 600 wherein placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Md. Idris Ansari (supra), it has been held at Paragraph 5 as follows : "5. This Court is unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the State. Rule 139(b) provides that if the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. Thus, it is evident that the provisions contained in Rule 139 can be invoked only where the service of a Government servant has not been thoroughly satisfactory and not merely because of some findings against him recorded in the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer on which the competent authority was yet to take final decision and Government servant retired before any such decision of the competent authority. Apart from the question as to whether such proceeding which remained inconclusive on account of non-passing of the final order before the Government servant retired could continue or not or that a fresh order in terms of Rule 43(b) in such cases is warranted, this Court finds it difficult to accept the contention on behalf of the State that the State Government was well within the power to invoke the provisions contained in Rule 139(b) in pursuance to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on which the competent authority was yet to apply his mind and to hold the petitioner guilty of alleged misconduct. The reasons mentioned in the impugned order for purported exercise of the power under Rule 139(b) is not that the services of the petitioner has not been thoroughly satisfactory. It is solely based on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on enquiry on which the competent authority was yet to take decision and in the meantime petitioner superannuated and the enquiry report remained unattended. Therefore, in my opinion, such notice (Annexure-6) and the action taken in pursuance thereof are wholly misconceived and without jurisdiction specially when the alleged misconduct was even beyond the scope of Rule 43(b) as it relates to the period beyond four years. According to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Md. Idris Ansari (supra) only in such a proceeding if the petitioner is found guilty of misconduct he could have been appropriately proceeded against under Rules 139(a) & (b). The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate that the notice (Annexure-6) invoking powers under Rule 139(b) was issued solely on the ground of alleged past misconduct during the period 30.10.1978 to 1.4.1980, which was the subject matter of the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner but not that it was based on the ground that service record of the petitioner was not thoroughly satisfactory. Under such circumstances, the Apex Court on a conjoint reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139(a) held that there was no escape from the conclusion that as the alleged misconduct was committed by the respondent in the said case prior to four years from the date on which show cause notice dated 27.9.1993 was issued, the State had no power to invoke Rules 139(a) and (b) against the said Respondent on the ground of proved misconduct, and consequently, held that the proceedings under Rule 139 were wholly incompetent. Further the Apex Court did not find any question of remanding the proceedings under Rules 139(a) and (b) as it could not survive as the alleged grave misconduct could not be established in any departmental proceedings after expiry of four years and such proceedings would be clearly barred by Rule 43(b) proviso (a) (ii), and treated the show cause notice itself as stubborn and ineffective from its inception." (xiii) Now if the case of the petitioner will be compared with the ratio of all the cases referred herein above, it will be evident that the proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner under the provision of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules while the petitioner was in service, but after his retirement w.e.f 30.4.2010 the said proceeding had been deemed to have been converted under the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The enquiry officer has submitted his report in which the charge has been found to be proved, but the competent authority has not taken any decision on the basis of the said enquiry report merely on the ground that the Government has not sustained any pecuniary loss, as such the Government had come to a conclusion that any punishment cannot be inflicted against the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and hence the order of punishment has been passed under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The disciplinary authority has misconstrued the said fact as also the legal aspect of the matter and instead of passing an order under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, has resorted to the provision of Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules merely on the ground that there is no pecuniary loss to the Government, but this notion of the respondents-State is absolutely illegal in view of the judgment rendered in L.P.A No.79/2013. The authorities ought to have passed an order under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, but instead thereof, the authorities have resorted to the provision of Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules on the ground of proved misconduct while the same will not come under the purview of Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, as has been discussed in the case of Ram Punit Kumar (supra). 8. On cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order of punishment dated 13.04.2012 (Annexure-7) is not legally sustainable and is accordingly quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondents to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order within a period of four months. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.