JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.: 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel for the respondents Electricity Board. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petitioner for quashing the order dated 03.01.2008 whereby 5% of the pensions amount of the petitioner has been withdrawn permanently in compliance of the Rule 43(B) of the Bihar pension Rules. It is further prayed to direct the respondents to pay the remaining dues along with the statutory interest on G.P.F. amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Electricity Board and subsequently he promoted up to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer and he retired from that post on 31.01.2003 from Electricity Board Circle, Daltonganj. Just before retirement, the petitioner received a copy of the resolution dated 22.11.2002 which was communicated to him by the letter dated 11.12.2002 whereby it is intimated that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Simultaneously, the petitioner served with the charges. The petitioner upon receiving the notice appeared and submitted his show cause before the Inquiry Officer on 18.02.2003. Mr. Choudhary, appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner on each and every date appeared before the Inquiry Officer. Mr. Choudhary further submits that the charges are of the year 1997 and presently he retired from the post. The petitioner filed its show-cause before the General Manager cum Chief Engineer and since then, the matter was kept in abeyance. He further submits that the charges are of the year 1997 wherein it is alleged that the petitioner is not functioning in proper direction and neglecting in monitoring of billing collection of revenue, organizing raids, lodging F.I.R, disconnection of defaulting consumers, and maintenance work etc. when he was Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division in Deoghar. No action has been taken, against the petitioner, thereafter and just before his retirement initiation of the departmental proceeding shows that it was arbitrary in nature. He further submits that the petitioner promoted to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 11.04.2002. He further submits that when the charges are of the year 1997 and he was promoted from the post to the Electrical Superintending Engineer in the year 2002 and there is no occasion to the authority just before retirement to go back to the charges of the year 1997. He further submits that when the charges are of the year 1997 and he was promoted from the post to the Electrical Superintending Engineer in the year 2002 and there is no occasion to the authority just before retirement to go back to the charges of the year 1997. He further submits that the petitioner earlier challenged the Departmental Proceeding and for payment of retiral dues in W.P.(S) No. 3765 of 2004 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.08.2004 with a direction to conclude the proceeding within a period of four weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner filed representation before the authorities. In spite of that, the authorities sat tight over the matter. The petitioner was compelled to file contempt application and during the pendency of the contempt application, the respondents have passed impugned order which is under challenge in this writ petition. He draws the attention of this Court to the impugned order contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition and submits that on perusal of this impugned order it is clear that four inquiry officers have been changed and they have not submitted their report. He further submits that in this order itself it is communicated that no inquiry has been completed and the disciplinary authorities proceeded to decide the charge against the petitioner on the basis of the written submissions of the parties. He further submits that this Court vide order dated 02.05.2019 directed the counsel for the Electricity Board to take instruction to file counter-affidavit to the fact that as to whether the inquiry officer has submitted their report or not. Today, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board fairly submits that inquiry officer has not submitted his report. 4. Mr. Choudhary further submits that there is nothing in the inquiry and as such Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rules has not been complied with. It is admitted fact that the four Inquiry Officers have been appointed, but, the inquiry report was not submitted. When the petitioner has promoted to the higher post in the year 2002 there is no occasion to go back for the charges leveled in the year 1997. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board, Mr. It is admitted fact that the four Inquiry Officers have been appointed, but, the inquiry report was not submitted. When the petitioner has promoted to the higher post in the year 2002 there is no occasion to go back for the charges leveled in the year 1997. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board, Mr. Amitabh, submits that the charges are very clear against the petitioner. From the charges, it transpires that this petitioner has not taken any step for collection of the revenue and due to which the Board has loss substantial amount of revenue. He further submits that the authorities concerned have examined the documents on record and thereafter, they have passed the order which is under challenge. He further submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is no inquiry report on the record. This fact admitted in the impugned order itself. Thus there is no compliance of rule 43(B) of the Pension Rules. 7. As a Cumulative effect of the above facts, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.01.2008 is quashed and the writ petition is hereby allowed. The respondents shall pass order for release of the withheld pension of the petitioner within eight weeks’ from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.