ORDER : 1. The appellant has brought this appeal aggrieved by an order passed by the disciplinary authority directing deduction of 10% from his pension on the allegation of concealing irregularities committed during the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the audit report. This order has been sustained by the learned First Court. 2. The appellant was working as a Senior Auditor, Grade-II under Deputy Controller In-charge, South Chhotanagpur Division, District Ranchi. He has retired from his service on 31st January, 2013. The allegation of irregularities relates to a time when he audited the account of Child Development Project Office, Bahragora for the aforesaid two financial years and from April to November, 2008. Allegation is that certificate was given that there was no irregularity in the audit. That certificate was given after about one year of conclusion of the audit. Subsequently, the same account had been audited by the Accountant General and several illegalities were found in such account. He was asked to explain such anomalies by a letter dated 7th September, 2011. Appellant claims that by a letter of 17th September, 2011, he had given his explanation. 3. The appellant was issued a show-cause notice on the allegation of concealing irregularities committed during the aforesaid period of audit. It appears that there were two enquiry reports at the departmental level submitted in the matter, the last one having been issued on 3rd November, 2012. The memorandum of charges, however, was issued on 26th March, 2014 and thereafter upon completion of enquiry, the aforesaid penalty was imposed. 4. The appellant sought quashing of the penalty imposed by the order of the disciplinary authority dated 28th January, 2015 and also quashing of the notices comprising of the letters dated 3rd September, 2010, 7th September, 2011 and 26th March, 2014. The learned First Court dismissed the writ petition holding, inter-alia:- “Briefly stated, the petitioner who superannuated from service on 31.01.2013 was issued a show-cause notice on the allegation of concealing irregularities committed during 2006-07 to 2007-08 in his audit report. An enquiry report was submitted in the matter and after issuing second show-cause notice to the petitioner the penalty order dated 28.01.2015 has been passed. Before that, another enquiry dated 03.09.2010 was submitted in which the enquiry officer recommended further enquiry by Finance (Audit) Department. An enquiry report was submitted in the matter and after issuing second show-cause notice to the petitioner the penalty order dated 28.01.2015 has been passed. Before that, another enquiry dated 03.09.2010 was submitted in which the enquiry officer recommended further enquiry by Finance (Audit) Department. Generally challenge to the charge-memo or the enquiry report is not entertained by the writ Court unless the charge-memo is found patently illegal or without jurisdiction. The enquiry report by its own nature cannot be interfered by the writ Court, for it would involve an exercise in adjudication of the disputed facts. Accordingly, challenge to letter dated 07.09.2011 (Annexure-2) and letter dated 03.09.2010 (Annexure-4) must fail. On challenge to legality of penalty order dated 28.01.2015, it needs to be recorded that disciplinary authority has recorded that inspite of several notices issued, the petitioner neither appeared before the enquiry officer nor did he submit his written defence. The enquiry officer has found charges framed against the petitioner proved. The second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.10.2014 which has also remain unanswered by the petitioner. Not only that, a notice in the newspaper was also published directing the petitioner to submit his reply, still he did not respond to the notice. Obviously, the petitioner cannot contend that the departmental proceeding was conducted in breach of the rules of natural justice. It is not a case pleaded by the petitioner that the departmental enquiry has been conducted contrary to the extant Rules. The penalty order is founded on the enquiry report.” 5. Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has referred to Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (the 1950 Rules) as applicable to this State. It is the appellant’s stand that imposition of penalty was barred under the law as the allegations forming basis of the proceeding pertained to a period which was four years prior to issue of the memorandum of charges. Such argument has been advanced purely on point of law and undisputed facts. Said Rule 43 stipulates:- “43. (a) Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. The Provincial Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. Said Rule 43 stipulates:- “43. (a) Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. The Provincial Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the Provincial Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of a pension under this rule, shall be final and conclusive. (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. (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). (c) The Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation - 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. (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. (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. (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.” 6. Stand of the State in this matter, which was accepted by the learned First Court, is that the appellant was evading service of notice, as a result of which the institution of memorandum of charges got delayed. Mr. Sahdeo, learned counsel for the State, submits that because of such evasive attitude of the appellant, the proceeding had to continue for a long period of time culminating in issue of memorandum of charges. Case of the appellant on the other hand is that clause (a)(ii) of Rule 43(b) of the 1950 Rules stood breached in the case of the appellant as irregularities on which he was sought to be implicated subsequent to his superannuation related to a period beyond four years from the date of issuance of memorandum of charges. 7. We have reproduced the aforesaid provision earlier in this judgment. The bar in the aforesaid clause is in respect of an event which took place more than four years before institution of the proceeding. Explanation to the aforesaid clause stipulates that the 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. The second part of clause (a) to the Explanation does not apply in this case. In this case, admittedly memorandum of charges was issued on 26th March, 2014. The event for which the appellant was sought to be proceeded against related to two financial years, i.e. 2006-07 and 2007-08. These two financial years go much beyond the four years’ limitation contained in the aforesaid clause of Rule 43(b) of the 1950 Rules. We have been taken through the memorandum of charges by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the memorandum of charges, the acts complained against relate to the said two financial years only. There is no allegation of continuance of the acts complained against, as has been argued before us by Mr. We have been taken through the memorandum of charges by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the memorandum of charges, the acts complained against relate to the said two financial years only. There is no allegation of continuance of the acts complained against, as has been argued before us by Mr. Sahdeo, learned counsel representing the State. The irregularities alleged related to two specific financial years. These irregularities could not be said to have had running impact similar to a situation which gives rise to a continuous cause of action in a judicial proceeding. Continuance of enquiry does not save the State’s power to initiate proceeding against a pensioner beyond the timeframe prescribed in proviso (a)(i) of Rule 43 (b) of the 1950 Rules. This being the position of law, we are unable to concur with the opinion of the learned First Court saving the proceeding and confirming the penalty. 8. We, under these circumstances, set aside the judgment of the learned First Court. We also set aside the order of penalty imposed against the appellant. In the event any deduction has been made after imposition of penalty from the pension of the appellant, the same shall be refunded and the appellant shall continue to get pension at the regular rate. 9. The appeal shall stand allowed in the above terms, but without any order as to costs.