JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing resolution dated 10.08.2013, by which departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner which culminated in imposition of punishment order as contained in Notification dated 13.01.2014, whereby 10 % pension already sanctioned has been ordered to be deducted for five years. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police by the State of Bihar in the year 1973 and retired on 31.05.2010 in the rank of Dy.S.P from the Jharkhand Police Service and, accordingly his pension was sanctioned. After retirement, in the year 2013, the petitioner was served with a memo dated 14.08.2013 containing memo of Charge dated 10.08.2013 stating therein that while he was posted in C.I.D, Bihar during the period 19.06.1998 to 17.12.2001, he did not put up the file of Begusarai P.S. Case No. 102/96 dated 27.04.1996 u/s 302/341/447/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act before any competent Police Officer on account of which no order was passed in the said case and its progress was delayed on account of which its merit was affected casting aspersion on its investigation. After being served with charges, the petitioner requested the Additional D.G (CID), Ranchi to give copy of the prejudicial documents, but the same was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his final written defence statement to the Additional Director General, C.I.D, Bihar on 27.11.2013 stating that departmental proceeding under Section 43 (b) of Pension Rules has illegally been initiated against him as the incident referred to in the charge is more than four years before his retirement, but, without considering the defence put forth by the petitioner, Notification order dated 13.01.2014 was passed, whereby 10 % pension has been ordered to be deducted for five years, which is impugned in this case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no show cause notice or explanation was asked for from the petitioner while in service or even after superannuation on 31.05.2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no show cause notice or explanation was asked for from the petitioner while in service or even after superannuation on 31.05.2010. The matter relates to the period 19.06.1988 to 17.12.2001 and after more than a decade and after more than three years of his retirement, departmental proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules was initiated against the petitioner and the respondents-authorities did not care to know that at this stage the departmental proceeding is barred by limitation as per the provision laid down in 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the case at hand neither there is any pecuniary loss nor there is any proved misconduct as to fetter the petitioner under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Rule 139 (b) of the Pension Rules is also not available to the respondents to invoke in the case at hand as there has been no proved misconduct nor there has been any decision that the services of the petitioner was thoroughly unsatisfactory. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the proceeding is fraught with procedural irregularity as neither prejudicial documents were supplied to the petitioner nor the witnesses examined in the proceeding has proved the charges levelled against the petitioner. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of State of Bihar & Ors vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari as reported in (1995) Supp 3 SCC 56 [: 1995(2) PLJR (SC)51] in particular paragraph 9 and 10. 4. Reiterating the averments made in the Counter affidavit, Mr. Vikash Kumar, J.C to A.A.G. submits that as per the order passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court dated 03.08.2010 in Cr. Misc. No. 26138 of 2009, Govt. of Bihar sent a letter of recommendation for initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner, the then Police Inspector (CID), Hatya Dasta, Patna on the ground that he did not put the matter related to Begusarai P.S. Case No. 102 of 1996 before the Senior Officer of CID and accordingly, departmental proceeding was initiated, which culminated in passing of impugned order of punishment. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that during the course of proceeding sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend his case and there is no procedural irregularity in conducting the departmental proceeding and punishment awarded in just and proper, which needs no interference by this Court. 5. On perusal of the documents available on record and after bestowing my anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties at length, it appears that petitioner retired on 31.05.2010 and for the matter relates to the period 19.06.1988 to 17.12.2001, after more than a decade and after more than three years of his retirement, departmental proceeding under Rule 43 (b) was initiated against the petitioner. It is settled position of law that after retirement, the only recourse to initiate proceeding against the delinquent employee is to initiate proceeding under Rule 43 (b) or 139 (b) of the Pension Rules. Now, the question which falls for consideration is as to whether the respondents were justified in initiating any departmental proceeding under Section 43 (b) of the Rules and the proceeding so initiated stands on the parameters of said Rules. 6. Now, the question which falls for consideration is as to whether the respondents were justified in initiating any departmental proceeding under Section 43 (b) of the Rules and the proceeding so initiated stands on the parameters of said Rules. 6. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to refer to proviso to sub-rule (b) of Rule 43 and 139 (a) and (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules: “Rule 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 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. Rule 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.” 7. From plain reading of Section 43 (b) of the Pension Rules, it is evident that such proceeding can only be initiated if there is pecuniary loss or grave misconduct and further proviso a.(ii) to Rule 43 (b) of the Rules speaks that such proceeding shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. Admittedly, in the case neither the proceeding has been initiated within four years of the event nor there is any pecuniary loss. Admittedly, in the case neither the proceeding has been initiated within four years of the event nor there is any pecuniary loss. Furthermore, the respondents failed to prove the fact that what exact misconduct has been committed by not putting up the file of Begusarai P.S. Case No. 102/96 before the competent authority. It is also not in dispute that the matter relates to the period 19.06.1988 to 17.12.2001 i.e. more than a decade after departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Hence, the case of the petitioner does not come within the purview of either Rule 43 (b) or Rule 139 of the Pension Rules. 8. Moreover, in the case at hand, the respondent has also failed to prove that the services of the petitioner was thoroughly unsatisfactory and no finding has been given by the authority or respondents have not come with a case that the services of the petitioner has been thoroughly unsatisfactory prior to retirement, hence, Rule 43 (b) or Rule 139 of the Pension Rules are remotely attracted. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others vs. Modh. Idris Ansari as reported in (1995) Supp (3) SCC 56 [ : 1995(2) PLJR (SC)51] 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned resolution dated 10.08.2013, by which departmental proceeding was initiated against him, and the punishment order as contained in Notification dated 13.01.2014 are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents-authorities are directed to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands allowed.