ORDER : Pramath Patnaik, J. In W.P.(S) No. 3934 of 2013, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of memo no.800/Ranchi dated 19.02.2013 passed by respondent no.3 pertaining to initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner, invoking provisions of Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930 read with Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, and for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for a declaration that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in terms of memo no.800/Ranchi dated 19.02.2013 issued under the signature of respondent no.3 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, and prayer has been made for stay of operation of the impugned memo no.800/Ranchi dated 19.02.2013 issued by respondent no.3 during pendency of the writ petition. 2. Vide order dated 17.09.2013 this Court has been pleased to pass orders to the effect that no final order shall be passed in pursuance of the resolution contained in Annexure-2 against the petitioner. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that initially the petitioner was appointed under Bihar Finance Services and retired from services on 31.01.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. It has been averred in the writ application that while petitioner was continuing in services, no departmental proceeding or any kind of proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for alleged omissions or commissions by the petitioner. Since, no post retirement benefits was given to the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in W.P.(S) No.4929 of 2012, which is being disposed of along with this writ petition by the consent of the parties. 4. In W.P.(S) No.4929 of 2012, this Court vide order dated 03.09.2012 directed to the respondent authorities to release the pensionary benefits and other benefits, as claimed by the petitioner or to show cause as to why post retiral benefits are not being paid to the petitioner, within four weeks from today as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. After retirement from services a departmental proceeding has been initiated vide memo No.800/Ranchi dated 19.02.2013 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby a departmental proceeding has been sought to be initiated by invoking of Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930 read with Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. After retirement from services a departmental proceeding has been initiated vide memo No.800/Ranchi dated 19.02.2013 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby a departmental proceeding has been sought to be initiated by invoking of Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930 read with Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It has been averred that the allegations as disclosed in Annexure-2 to the writ application, pertains to period when the petitioner was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (I/c) from 04.11.2003 to 31.05.2005 and as Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (I/c) from 01.06.2005 to 10.07.2007 in Chirkunda Circle, Chirkunda. During the said period the petitioner has been found to have caused revenue loss to the department by passing order of refund against the hard coke industries and a detailed charge-sheet has been attached in Prapatra (Ka). Being aggrieved by the initiation of departmental proceeding, the petitioner being constrained has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance. 5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner relates to an event, which is prior to four years from the date of retirement of the petitioner and in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, no departmental proceeding could have been initiated against the retired person, which is beyond the period of four years from the date of retirement. Learned senior counsel further submits that from the memo of charges, it is quite evident that the departmental proceeding has been initiated on 19.02.2013 and at best the departmental proceeding could not have been initiated for an event up to 19.02.2009 and not beyond that period as it has been specifically mentioned in Rule 43(b) that no departmental or judicial proceeding, 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 this proceeding. Rule 43(b) gives right to the State Government to withhold pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specific period and the Government also reserves the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the 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 the Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, however the said power is subject to the proviso, which clearly stipulates that such departmental proceeding shall be only in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have committed error in law by initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner with respect to the period which relates to four years prior to the date of the retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the proceeding against the petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction and the continuation of the same would be violation of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 6. Controverting the averments made in the writ applications, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the State has reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit. During course of hearing learned counsel for the State has assiduously submitted that the petitioner, who was in-charge of Chirkunda Circle during 04.11.2003 to 10.07.2007, has also been the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Dhanbad Division from 14.12.2009 to 31.01.2012, till the date of his retirement. The capacity of J.C.C.T (Admn.) of the Dhanbad Division, he was the controlling officer of the Chirkunda Circle. He could have enquired into the matter and passed review order, but deliberately he did nothing during his tenure of J.C.C.T (Admn.), Dhanbad Division. In the counter affidavit, a detailed events in chronological order has been furnished vide Annexures-A to L to the counter affidavit. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is also accused of Animal Husbandry Scam of erstwhile Bihar State in C.B.I Case No.R.C-63(A)/1996 (Pat) and prosecution has been sanctioned by Law Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide Notification No.146 dated 14.10.2011, Annexure-M to the counter affidavit. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is also accused of Animal Husbandry Scam of erstwhile Bihar State in C.B.I Case No.R.C-63(A)/1996 (Pat) and prosecution has been sanctioned by Law Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide Notification No.146 dated 14.10.2011, Annexure-M to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the matter of refund/wrong assessment of huge amount of tax was referred to the Finance (Audit) Department of the Govt., which submitted its audit report dated 09.05.2012 to the Department, in which name of Sri Suresh Prasad, retired Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Dhanbad Division also figured. The petitioner is found to have acted in causing loss of revenue to the Government to the tune of Rs.83,86,819/- and, therefore, proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules has been initiated against him. It has been further submitted that enquiry officer has already submitted his report and pursuant thereto the petitioner vide letter dated 06.08.2013 has been issued the second show cause notice and directed to file his reply vide Annexures-N & O to the counter affidavit. The petitioner submitted his reply of the second show cause notice on 16.08.2013 vide Annexure-P to the counter affidavit. The charges against the petitioner has been found proved and as such decision was taken to impose major punishment against the petitioner and in the meantime, the approval of the Hon’ble Departmental Minister was accorded on 13.09.2013 and file was sent to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for grant of approval upon the decision of the Department and he approved the proposal on 25.09.2013, but the final order has not yet been issued, in view of the interim order passed by this Hon’ble Court. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and upon bestowing my anxious consideration to the documents on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference, due to the following facts reasons and judicial pronouncements:- (I) Admittedly, after retirement from the post of Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes on 31.01.2012, a proceeding vide memo dated 19.02.2013 has been initiated against the petitioner by respondent no.3, invoking provision of Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930 read with Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. On perusal of the charges vide Annexure-2, it is quite evident that the allegation pertains to the period of incumbency of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (In-charge) i.e from 04.11.2003 to 31.05.2005 and from 01.06.2005 to 10.07.2007. It is alleged that the petitioner has been found to have caused loss to the department by passing the order of refund against the hard coke industries and a detailed charge-sheet has been attached in Prapatra (Ka), causing revenue loss to the Government. It is alleged that the petitioner has been found to have caused loss to the department by passing the order of refund against the hard coke industries and a detailed charge-sheet has been attached in Prapatra (Ka), causing revenue loss to the Government. (II) For better appreciation, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, which reads as under:- “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 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.” On perusal of the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, it is manifestly clear that a bar is put in initiating departmental proceeding with respect to an event which is prior to four years from the date of the retirement of an employee and in view of the specific bar imposed by the statute the respondent authorities have committed error in law by initiating the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. (III) The issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1995 Suppl. (III) The issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 56 [:1995 (2) PLJR (SC) 51](State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari). It is manifest from a plain reading of the judgment that their Lordships were considering the validity of proceedings under the Pension Rules initiated after superannuation of the employee concerned. The judgment is an authority on the scope and ambit of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the Pension Rules, and with respect to proceedings started thereunder after superannuation of the employee. 8. In view of the provisions of Rule 43(b) and the decision cited above, Mohd. Idris Ansari (supra), the departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide Annexure-2 is in the teeth of Rule 43(b) proviso and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, Mohd. Idris Ansari (supra). Therefore, the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Annexure-2, is illegal and without jurisdiction, cannot sustained in the eye of law. 9. In view of the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the initiation of the proceeding dated 19.02.2013, vide Annexure-2 to the writ application being illegal and without jurisdiction and in the teeth of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension rules, is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, respondent authorities are directed to release the admissible post retirement dues, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from today. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ applications stand allowed.