JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Amit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Alok, learned Standing Counsel No.7 for the State. 2. With consent of the parties this writ petition has been considered with a view to its final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.3919 dated 7.3.2013 passed by the State Government in its General Administration Department, whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of deduction of 5% from his pension for a period of 10 years. A copy of the order is impugned at Annexure-15 and even the review preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the State Government vide order bearing Memo No.11536 dated 12.7.2013 a copy of which has been placed on record vide Annexure ‘L’ to the counter affidavit. 4. The charge-sheet is enclosed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition and charges the petitioner, who at the relevant time held the post of a Special Land Acquisition Officer, of altering the nature of several plots of land which were put under acquisition, by holding it to be of a residential character. The petitioner refuted the charge and the matter led to an enquiry, the report of which is present at Annexure-2. The Enquiry Officer who in the present case is the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the guilt and that the explanation given by the petitioner can be accepted. 5. The Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the report leading to a re-enquiry in the matter and which 2nd report is present at Annexure-3 dated 22.4.2010. The Commissioner-cum-Enquiry Officer reiterated his previous opinion that there were insufficient evidence to prove the charge. At this stage the file moved apparently for dropping the proceedings initiated against the petitioner which is manifest from Annexures 4 and 5. The situation yet did not satisfy the Disciplinary Authority leading to a 3rd enquiry, which report is present at Annexure-7. The Commissioner-cum-Enquiry Officer reiterated his previous opinion that there were insufficient evidence to prove the charge. At this stage the file moved apparently for dropping the proceedings initiated against the petitioner which is manifest from Annexures 4 and 5. The situation yet did not satisfy the Disciplinary Authority leading to a 3rd enquiry, which report is present at Annexure-7. The enquiry report concludes as follows in paragraphs 7 and 8: ^^7- mijksDr of.kZr vfHkys[k ,oa vH;kosnu ds vkyksd esa] fu"d"kZ ds rkSj ij fuEukafdr ckrsa mHkj dj lkeus vkrh gS%& ¼d½ izlaxk/khu Hkwfe dk Lo:Ik okLrfod rkSj ij 1987 esa D;k Fkk] bldk vkdyu vFkok HkkSfrd lR;kiu] orZeku es fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA ¼[k½ vfHkys[k ls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd Jh misUnz >k }kjk lefiZr fd;k x;k izkjafHkd izkDdyu ftlesa fd 4-78 ,dM+ Hkwfe dks vkoklh; oxhZd`r fd;k x;k] =qfViw.kZ Fkk] ftls le; jgrs lq/kkj dj fn;k x;k] ftlds dkj.k ljdkj dks jktLo dh {kfr ugha gqbZA ¼x½ foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa izLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh dk dFku] ftl ij Li"V earO; dh vis{kk dh x;h gS] xfBr vkjksi ij gh vk/kkfjr Fkk] ftl ij mHk; i{kksa dks lquus ds i'pkr uSlfxZd U;k; dk ikyu djrs gq, tkap] inkf/kdkjh }kjk dk;Zokgh lapkfyr dh x;hA 8- vuqjks/k gksxk fd mijksDr ds vkyksd esa ;Fkksfpr dkjZokbZ djus dh d`ik dh tk;sA** 6. In no uncertain terms the Enquiry Officer has mentioned that it was not possible to assess the physical character of the land in the year 1987 and even if the assessment made by the petitioner in respect of 4.78 acres of land as residential was found defective but the error was corrected within time and as a result whereof there was no revenue loss to the State. 7. The 3rd report is dated 5.9.2011 and in the meanwhile the petitioner superannuated on 31.7.2011. In these circumstances the Principal Secretary very rightly opined on 5.12.2011 vide Annexure-9 that the records be consigned after obtaining approval of the Chief Minister but soon thereafter there was a change in mind and the Principal Secretary on the same set of facts, now suggested that the petitioner should be visited with penalty of 5% deduction from his pension for a period of 10 years. 8. 8. This subsequent opinion of the Principal Secretary dated 20.3.2012 has the approval of the Chief Minister and the proceeding so initiated against the petitioner was converted in a proceeding under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules vide resolution bearing No. 4966 dated 3.4.2012 present at Annexure-11. The petitioner was served with the second show cause on 20.6.2012 under the signature of the Joint Secretary, General Administration Department a copy of which is present at Annexure-12 expressing disagreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and with the proposed punishment of 5% deduction from the pension amount for a period of 10 years. The petitioner filed an exhaustive reply to the second show cause, a copy of which is present at Annexure-13 which is dated 22.6.2012. The opinion of the Bihar Public Service Commission was taken on the proposed punishment and who opined otherwise taking note of the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority yet proceeded to impose the penalty in question and feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records. 10. While Mr. Amit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court through the record to submit that even if any error existed in the characterization of the plots admeasuring 4.78 acres, put under acquisition, the same was corrected by the petitioner within time and even otherwise the error whatsoever has been duly explained by the petitioner in his show cause reply. Mr. Alok, learned State Counsel on the other hand with reference to the charge-sheet submits, that the allegation was serious and an attempt was made by the petitioner to cause financial loss to the Government. Even while making such allegation Mr. Alok was unable to contest that no financial loss actually occurred since the petitioner corrected the characterization. 11. The core issue which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the categorization made by the petitioner in respect of 4.78 acres of land under acquisition, corrected subsequently, yet can be termed a ‘misconduct’ for being proceeded under the Bihar Pension Rules. 12. A conversion of a proceeding drawn against an employee during service period into one under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, is not a routine exercise rather the prerequisites for such conversion present in the Rule would have to be satisfied. 12. A conversion of a proceeding drawn against an employee during service period into one under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, is not a routine exercise rather the prerequisites for such conversion present in the Rule would have to be satisfied. The relevant extract of rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules necessary for the present purpose, reads as under: “43. (a) …. … … … … ….…. …. …. …. ….. ….. (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. Explanations.- 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. 13. It is eloquent from a plain reading of the rule that unless the State Government is of the opinion that the Government servant concerned is guilty of grave misconduct or has caused financial loss to the Government by his misconduct, a proceeding initiated during service period, cannot be continued post retirement, because its consequences are rather serious affecting the pension of the delinquent. 14. Thus until such time that it is concluded with supportive evidence that the act complained of is a grave misconduct or the delinquent by his misconduct has caused financial loss, the proceeding neither can be continued after retirement of the delinquent nor any penalty under the Bihar Pension Rules can be imposed. 15. In the present case neither of the two situations stand satisfied. In fact all the three enquiry reports very categorically mentions that although the categorization made by the petitioner was defective but the same was corrected within time and it did not result in any pecuniary loss to the Government. 16. Not every error including an error of judgment committed by a delinquent, is construed as a misconduct unless and until the results are disastrous or the act has led to financial loss to the Government or the act is done with a motivated mind to benefit himself or some other or the act is in apparent breach of the rules. An innocuous bona-fide error which is corrected within time by the delinquent, in absence of any evidence to prove to the contrary, certainly cannot be construed a misconduct, to invite an extreme penalty of deduction of 5% from his pension for a period of 10 years. An innocuous bona-fide error which is corrected within time by the delinquent, in absence of any evidence to prove to the contrary, certainly cannot be construed a misconduct, to invite an extreme penalty of deduction of 5% from his pension for a period of 10 years. Reference in this regard is made to the judgments of the Supreme Court since reported in (1979) 2 SCC 286 (Union of India Vs. J Ahmed) and AIR 1992 SC 2188 (State of Punjab vs. Ram Singh). 17. It is rather unfortunate that despite the position that the Enquiry Officer of a rank of a Commissioner of a Division having thrice opined in favour of the petitioner to drop the proceedings in absence of any evidence supportive of the fact that the petitioner’s act can be construed as misconduct and even when similar opinion came from the Bihar Public Service Commission, yet the Disciplinary Authority has mechanically proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty which order of the Disciplinary Authority is a perversity defined, for it lacks supportive evidence and does not accompany reasons. 18. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order bearing Memo No.3919 dated 7.3.2013 impugned at Annexure-15 and the order bearing Memo No.11536 dated 12.7.2013 present at Annexure ‘L’ to the counter affidavit are quashed and set aside. In consequence the amount recovered from the pension of the petitioner, should be refunded within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 19. The writ petition is allowed.