JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the initiation of proceeding against him by issuance of charge-sheet dated 22.12.2008 and during the pendency of the writ application the authority has inflicted the punishment vide order dated 03.09.2014 (Annexure-10), reducing 50% pension per month. 3. The short question is being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner has superannuated from service on 31.08.2008 and in terms of 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the rider is that an employee who has superannuated can be put to a departmental proceeding within four years of his retirement, but after four years the retired employee cannot be proceeded with. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has superannuated on 31.08.2004. The State has taken decision to initiate a proceeding on 17.01.2008. The charge-sheet was issued on 22.12.2008 and resolution against the petitioner to initiate a departmental proceeding was taken on 19.02.2009 and ultimately, the punishment was awarded on 03.09.2014. If the date of superannuation is taken as 31.08.2004, then four years come to an end on or before 30.08.2008 and thereafter retired employee goes beyond the reach of the State Government to initiate a departmental proceeding against the employee concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the State has tried to impress upon this Court that the decision to initiate a departmental proceeding was taken on 17.01.2008, but this Court is not satisfied, unless the charge-sheet is issued to the person as has been mentioned in 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. 6. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Union Of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in 1991 AIR 2010, wherein it has been held that criminal proceeding starts on the date of filing of the charge-sheet and departmental proceeding starts on the date when the delinquent is served with the charge memo. Admittedly, the charge memo has been issued on 22.12.2008 after four years, so the proceeding itself vitiates. 7. Admittedly, the charge memo has been issued on 22.12.2008 after four years, so the proceeding itself vitiates. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment of reduction of 50% pension is too harsh for exemployee gets support from the judgment of this Court in the case of The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary and Others vs. Narmdeshwar Sharma and another, reported in 2017 (1) PLJR, 252, wherein it has been decided that the punishment of reducing 50% pension is too harsh and the Court has interfered with the matter and remanded back for fresh consideration. As this Court has already held that departmental proceeding vitiates, the question of remanding back matter on the point of punishment does not arise. 8. In such view of the matter, the order initiation of departmental proceeding and the order of punishment dated 03.09.2014 are quashed. 9. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed.