ORDER : In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith fix the final pension of the petitioner and after fixation of final pension, make payment of ACP, gratuity, transit allowances (Sthantran (Sewanirwit) Anudaan) as well as 02nd ACP alongwith interest. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts described in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the year 1975 and after rendering about more than 36 years on the said post, the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2012 from the office of the respondent no. 3. It has been contended in the writ petition that after retirement, the petitioner has been running from pillar to post for grant of post-retirement benefits, such as, pension, gratuity and other post-retirement benefits. The grievance of the petitioner has fallen on the deaf ears of Respondents. Being aggrieved by the intimation dated 16.09.2016, passed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2), the petitioner left with no other alternative, has been constrained to approach this Court for redressal of his grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, wherein, it has been submitted that a Committee was constituted to inquire into the merit of the appointment of the petitioner by the Director-in-Chief of Health Service, Government of Jharkhand vide his letter dated 07.06.2012. The inquiry committee has inquired into the matter and given its report on 08.08.2012 that the appointment of the petitioner seems to be illegal in first look and File has been sent to the Law Department for legal opinions and therefore, due to above condition, further MACP and other grievances are not possible to be paid. Photocopy of the Inquiry Report dated 08.08.2012 has been annexed to the counter affidavit, as Annexure-A. 4. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, wherein, reiterating the stand taken in the earlier counter affidavit, it has been, inter alia, submitted that a three man committee was constituted consisting Director, Health Services, Govt. of Jharkhand, Deputy Director of all Health Services, Palamu and State Leprosy Officer. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, wherein, reiterating the stand taken in the earlier counter affidavit, it has been, inter alia, submitted that a three man committee was constituted consisting Director, Health Services, Govt. of Jharkhand, Deputy Director of all Health Services, Palamu and State Leprosy Officer. The Committee has submitted its report dated 08.08.2012 with the finding that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and therefore, the Government has opined that the administrative department is competent to pass the order on the basis of inquiry report. 5. A further counter affidavit dated 17.11.2016 has been filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, wherein, it has been, inter alia, submitted that the Department had taken decision with regard to the appointment of petitioner that his full pension has been withheld vide memo dated 16.09.2016 and the same has been approved by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having continued for more than 36 years, is entitled for post-retirement benefits and after retirement from Government service, the authorities does not have the power to withhold pension without resorting to Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents are denuded from invoking Rule 43 (b) for withholding pension after retirement from his service on the ground that no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules nor even a notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the order for withholding of pension, which is not permissible under the law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey Versus State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2007 (4) JCR 1 (Jhr) (FB). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Kashi Ram Rana-versus-State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2010 (4) JCR 226 (Jhr) and submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. 7. As against the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Kashi Ram Rana-versus-State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2010 (4) JCR 226 (Jhr) and submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. 7. As against the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned J.C. to G.P. IV appearing for the Respondent-State has vehemently submitted that on the basis of the finding of the 3 men Committee, it has been found that the very appointment of the petitioner was illegal, being obtained by adopting fraudulent means, so since the appointment of the petitioner was invalid from the very inception, he is not entitled to post-retirement benefits. Relying on the judgment reported in AIR 1988 Patna 26 (FB) in the case of Rita Mishra and others etc.-versus-Director, Primary Education, Bihar and others, etc., learned counsel for the Respondent-State submits that as per the aforesaid decision, it is well-settled that the rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Therefore these rights, including the right to salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once, it is found that the very appointment is illegal and non est in the eye of law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise. In other words, if the very appointment is rested on forgery, no statutory right can flow from it. 8. After giving my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal the records, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: - (i) Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner continued for more than 36 years on the post of Clerk under the respondent no.3. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties without any blemish during his service career. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties without any blemish during his service career. No proceeding was every initiated so as to ascertain the veracity of appointment of the petitioner during his service career and the petitioner retired on 31.01.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation with the fond hope of getting the post-retirement benefits but the hopes of the petitioner got belied by the inaction of the respondents, which forced the petitioner to run from pillar to post and ultimately, due to which the petitioner has been constrained to file the instant writ petition. The Respondents, by virtue of report of a 3 member committee is bent upon to tinker with the pension of the petitioner by passing the order dated 16.09.2016, which is not legally permissible in the eye of law in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey Versus State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2007 (4) JCR 1 (Jhr) (FB), wherein, it has been held that under Rule 43 (a) and 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold Gratuity and pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding. It does not give any power to withhold Leave Encashment at any stage either prior to the proceeding or after conclusion of the proceeding. It does not give any power to withhold Leave Encashment at any stage either prior to the proceeding or after conclusion of the proceeding. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, which reads as under : - “(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 evident 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;” From the reading of the aforesaid provision, it is quite evident that the proof of grave misconduct on the part of the Government servant is to be established in a departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding which may be initiated even after his retirement in such type of cases but such departmental proceeding will have to comply with the requirement of the Rule 43 (b). Consequently, retired Government servant can be found guilty of grave misconduct committed during his service career, pursuant to the departmental proceeding conducted against him even after his retirement but such proceeding could be initiated in connection with only such misconduct which might have taken place within four years of the initiation of such departmental proceeding against him. Consequently, retired Government servant can be found guilty of grave misconduct committed during his service career, pursuant to the departmental proceeding conducted against him even after his retirement but such proceeding could be initiated in connection with only such misconduct which might have taken place within four years of the initiation of such departmental proceeding against him. (ii) In the present case, admittedly, before issuance of order dated 16.09.2016 vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit dated 17.11.2016, withholding of the pension under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules, no departmental proceeding had been initiated nor such finding of securing employment on forged document has come in a judicial proceeding, rather, the authority only on the basis of finding by a 3 member Committee, which though was denied but was not found satisfactory, has passed the order, which can never be said to be in consonance with the provision as contained in Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules under and as such, in the circumstances noted above, the authority is bereft of any power to withhold the post-retirement benefits. The view of this Court gets fortified by the decision in the case of Kashi Ram Rana-versus-State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2010 (4) JCR 226 (Jhr). 9. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and as a logical sequitor, the order dated 16.09.2016 vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit dated 17.11.2016, passed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No.2) is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to forthwith pay the pensionary benefits of the petitioner alongwith statutory interest, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. So far as the benefits of ACP are concerned, the respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands allowed.