ORDER : In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing the notification dated 13.06.2012 and subsequent notice dated 28.06.2012 pertaining to initiation of proceeding under Rule 43-b of the Pension Rules and for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.06.2012. 2. The bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as Kanoongo-cum-Cricle Inspector in the year 1974 and during in course of time, the petitioner was promotted as Assistant Settlement Officer. The petitioner retired on 31.05.2009 as Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement from Government service when the post retiral benefits was not given to the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.2641 of 2010 for payment of the same and the said writ petition was disposed of dated 02.05.2012 with a direction to respondents to consider the same in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order within a period of six weeks thereafter and it was directed that legally admissible dues with statutory interest paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is averred in the writ application, a notification dated 13.06.2012 has been issued by the respondent no.4 on the allegations of illegally made entries in the records pertaining to land belonging to the State Government in favour of certain persons who had no legal documents to support the title. In the said notification, it has been also mentioned that a notice dated 17.01.2006 has been issued to the petitioner seeking clarifications in respect of the aforesaid allegations. However, the petitioner failed to submit any clarification and superannuated on 31.05.2009. Therefore, it was decided to initiate the departmental proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. It has been held that the payment of the petitioner would be considered only after conclusion of the aforesaid departmental proceedings. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 28.06.2012, in relation to the departmental proceedings, directing the petitioner to appear before the enquiry officer on 25.07.2012 and to make submissions in defense. It has been held that the payment of the petitioner would be considered only after conclusion of the aforesaid departmental proceedings. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 28.06.2012, in relation to the departmental proceedings, directing the petitioner to appear before the enquiry officer on 25.07.2012 and to make submissions in defense. Being aggrieved by the impugned notification dated 13.06.2012 and subsequent notice dated 28.06.2012 properly issued under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, the petitioner left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has submitted that the very initiation of proceeding, under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules is not legally sustainable, in view of the fact that the proviso (ii) of Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules provides that no proceeding shall be initiated in respect to any event, that had took place more than four years from institution of the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, and admittedly, the proceeding has been initiated for an offence, which took place in the year 2006. Learned senior counsel further submits that in view of the settled proposition of law, there is no power for the Government to withhold gratuity and pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding but in the instant case, the respondents have withheld the retiral benefits in the guise of pendency of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submits that the show-cause notice dated 17.01.2006 issued to the petitioner by stretch of imagination can be construed to be the proceeding as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision as reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 [: 1992(1) PLJR (SC) 27] in the case of Union of India And Others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman And Others and also the decision reported in (2007) 6 SCC 694 [: 2007(4) JLJR (SC) 41] in the case of UCO Bank And Another Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that the continuation of departmental enquiry after retirement is permissible, even in such cases, where the departmental proceeding commenced during service period, by issuance of charge-sheet. Rajinder Lal Capoor, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that the continuation of departmental enquiry after retirement is permissible, even in such cases, where the departmental proceeding commenced during service period, by issuance of charge-sheet. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits it is no more res integra that the proceeding in respect of event that the respondent authorities had no power to invoke Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules for the event, took place more than 4 years from the date of institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to judgments as reported in 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 56 [: 1994(1) PLJR 809 ] in the case of State of Bihar And Others Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari and the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4049 of 2014 [Ed.-Reported in 2016(3) JLJR 38 .] dated 07.04.2016 in the case of Ravindra Prasad Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others and as per the decision in W.P.(S) No.3503 of 2010 decided on May 8, 2015 in the case of Suresh Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand. 4. Per-contra, controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter has been filed by the respondent nos.5 and 6. J.C to S.C.-V has reiterated submissions made in the counter-affidavit. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the State has assiduously submitted that the petitioner as a public servant was posted as Assistant Settlement Officer in the survey and settlement department from different places of the State of Bihar and subsequently after creation of Jharkhand, posted at Santhal Pargana, Dumka. In course of posting at Santhal Pargana, he was transferred to Tasdik Camp Mohanpur, District Deoghar. During tenure (last week of December 2001 to May 2002) he disposed of several Tasdik matters relating to preparation of Khatiyan in respect of lands of several villages within the jurisdiction of the camp including lands of Mauza Choupa no.789, Anchal Mohanpur in the district of Deoghar. During tenure (last week of December 2001 to May 2002) he disposed of several Tasdik matters relating to preparation of Khatiyan in respect of lands of several villages within the jurisdiction of the camp including lands of Mauza Choupa no.789, Anchal Mohanpur in the district of Deoghar. Some of the villagers of Mauza Choupa lodged a complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Jharkhand against the petitioner alleging inter-alia that the petitioner during his tenure has committed several irregularities/illegalities and mischief in recording the name of the persons and has recorded the lands of several plots appertaining to Anabadi Khas land of the district in the names of the persons who had no legal and valid documents for the same wrongly and illegally for his personal benefits and monitary gain. On receipt of the said complaint, the settlement officer Dumka got the matter inquired by constituting a team of settlement staff and thereafter also got the matter inquired by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar after getting the matter inquired from his subordinate officers, submitted his report to the Settlement Officer, Dumka confirming the allegations containing in the complaint as aforesaid. On the basis of the said inquiry report of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, the petitioner was served with a notice to explain and clarify the matter vide memo dated 17.01.2006 while he was on transferred, posted at Hazaribagh survey and settlement Department and the copy of the notice dated 17.01.2006 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. The petitioner did not submit any explanation to the said notice and he retired. Thereafter the matter was referred to the higher officer Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka who in terms recommended for Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner and accordingly the matter was referred to the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department of Jharkhand whereupon a notification issued vide memo dated 13.06.2012 directing the petitioner to appear before the departmental enquiry also. Learned counsel for the State butressing his argument has referred the decisions reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 665 decided on 18.11.1991 in the case of Shambhu Saran Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. Learned counsel for the State butressing his argument has referred the decisions reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 665 decided on 18.11.1991 in the case of Shambhu Saran Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. Learned counsel for the State submits that as per the aforesaid decisions the proceeding has been validly initiated against the petitioner and in this respect, learned counsel for the State has referred to para 7, wherein their Lordship have made a distinction in Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules between a case where a disciplinary enquiry is already pending at the time of such superannuation and where no such disciplinary enquiry is pending at the time of retirement. There is absolutely no quarrel over the said proposition of law. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the aforesaid decisions the respondents authorities decided to initiate the departmental proceedings vide Annexure-3 to the writ application and there has been infraction of 43(b) of the Pension Rules. 5. Having heard, learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the evidences on records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and judicial pronouncements as stated hereinbelow :- (I) Indisputably the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka on 31.05.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation and the impugned notification, which has been issued vide Annexure-3 dated 13.06.2012 pertains to a departmental proceeding, which was initiated after 3 years of retirement of the petitioner. But in the said impugned notification there is reference to the earlier show-cause notice dated 17.01.2006. In the said impugned notification the reference made in certain illegal entries in the Khatiyans. It is alleged that some omission and misconduct has been committed by the petitioner while continuing as Assistant Settlement Officer in recording government lands. In respect of the alleged misconduct reference to the year 2005 to 2006 as revealed in a counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 1, 3 and 4 in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit. As per the rule, for better appreciation it would be apposite to refer Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules which envisages :- “43(b). In respect of the alleged misconduct reference to the year 2005 to 2006 as revealed in a counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 1, 3 and 4 in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit. As per the rule, for better appreciation it would be apposite to refer Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules which envisages :- “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 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 reemployment after retirement.” (II) On perusal of the aforesaid provisions and procedure, Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, there is no power to withhold gratuity and pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding. As per the aforesaid provisions, there is absolutely explicit and it is clear that the proceeding which has been initiated in the year 2012. The instant case was beyond 4 years as per the aforesaid provisions so in that view of the matter the impugned notification vide Annexure-3 is not legally sustainable. This Court gets fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 56 [: 1994(1) PLJR 809 ] in the case of State of Bihar And Others Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari. So far as contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the alleged show-cause notices which has been issued in the year 2006 cannot be construed to be a departmental proceeding in the absence of any charge-sheet. It gets fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2008) 5 SCC 257 in the case of Uco Bank And Another Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor. Therefore, there was absolutely no proceeding prior to retirement of the petitioner i.e. 31.05.2009. (III) So far as contention of the learned counsel for the State regarding the issuance of notice prior to retirement 2006 and reference of citation in the case of Shambhu Saran Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. is concerned, this is absolutely not applicable to the case in hand. (III) So far as contention of the learned counsel for the State regarding the issuance of notice prior to retirement 2006 and reference of citation in the case of Shambhu Saran Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. is concerned, this is absolutely not applicable to the case in hand. The decision cited by the State is misconceived. 6. In view of the reasons and submissions stated in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the considered view that the impugned notification dated 13.06.2012 (Annexure-3) being not sustainable is liable to be quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to pay of admissible post retiral dues within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands allowed.