JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manav Poddar, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the resolution issued by the State of Jharkhand dated 30.01.2019, contained in Annexure-3 of the writ petition. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies in the State of Bihar on 01.05.1987. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was allocated Jharkhand cadre. Prior to that also, the petitioner was working in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner retired on 31.07.2018 from the post of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. After retirement, the petitioner has made several representations for expediting the payment of his post retirement benefits. On 30.01.2019, the petitioner was informed about the initiation of departmental proceeding against him under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. 5. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order dated 30.01.2019 on the ground that the departmental proceeding was initiated after retirement of the petitioner without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without following the principles of natural justice. He submits that prior to retirement of the petitioner, no departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He also submits that the petitioner was posted as Managing Director of the Bank for the period between 11.07.2007 to 05.10.2009. By way of referring Annexure-3 of the writ petition, he submits that the charge-sheet has been formulated for waiver of loans not for disbursement prior to 31.03.2007 and installments should not have been repaid since February, 2008. He further submits that in view of the provisions under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, departmental proceeding cannot be allowed to be proceeded without providing any opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee. He also submits that initiation of proceeding invoked under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules is not in accordance with law. Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the Pension Rules are required to be read in consonance. He also submits that initiation of proceeding invoked under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules is not in accordance with law. Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the Pension Rules are required to be read in consonance. After retirement of the petitioner and without deciding the representation of the petitioner, the stage for invoking Rule 139 of the Pension Rules has not come, in view of the fact that pension has not been issued in favour of the petitioner. To buttress his argument, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Others v. Mohd. Idris Ansari , reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56. 6. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: “9. So far as that rule is concerned, it empowers the State Authorities to decide the question whether full pension should be allowed to a retired government servant or not in the circumstances contemplated by the rule. The first circumstance is that if the service of the government servant concerned is not found to be thoroughly satisfactory, appropriate reduction in the pension can be ordered by the sanctioning authority. The second circumstance is that if it is found that service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or there is proof of grave misconduct on the part of the government servant concerned while in service, the State Government in exercise of revisional power may interfere with the fixation of pension by the subordinate authority. But such power flowing from Rule 139, under the aforesaid circumstances, is further hedged by two conditions. First condition is that revisional power has to be exercised in consonance with the principles of natural justice and secondly such revisional power can be exercised only within three years from the date of the sanctioning of the pension for the first time. A conjoint reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 projects the following picture: 1. A retired government servant can be proceeded against under Rule 139 and his pension can be appropriately reduced if the sanctioning authority is satisfied that the service record of the respondent was not thoroughly satisfactory. 2. A conjoint reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 projects the following picture: 1. A retired government servant can be proceeded against under Rule 139 and his pension can be appropriately reduced if the sanctioning authority is satisfied that the service record of the respondent was not thoroughly satisfactory. 2. Even if the service record of the officer concerned is found to be thoroughly satisfactory by the sanctioning authority and if the State Government finds that it is not thoroughly satisfactory or that there is proof of grave misconduct of the officer concerned during his service tenure, the State Government can exercise revisional power to reduce the pension but that revision is also subject to the rider that it should be exercised within 3 years from the date, an order sanctioning pension was first passed in his favour by the sanctioning authority and not beyond that period. 10. So far as the second type of cases are concerned the proof of grave misconduct on the part of the government servant concerned during his service tenure will have to be culled out by the revisional authority from the departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings which might have taken place during his service tenure or from departmental proceedings which may be initiated even after his retirement in such type of cases. But such departmental proceedings will have to comply with the requirements of Rule 43(b). Consequently a retired government servant can be found guilty of grave misconduct during his service career pursuant to the departmental proceedings conducted against him even after his retirement, but such proceedings could be initiated in connection with only such misconduct which might have taken place within 4 years of the initiation of such departmental proceedings against him. In the present case, the respondent retired on 31-1-1993 and the show-cause notice was issued on the ground of grave misconduct on 27-9-1993 and not on the ground that service record of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory. It was issued by the State Government as sanctioning authority. It had, therefore, to be read with Rule 43(b). Such notice therefore, could cover any misconduct if committed within 4 years prior to 27-9-1993 meaning thereby it should have been committed during the period from 26-9-1989 up to 31-1-1993 when the respondent retired. Only in case of such a misconduct, departmental proceedings could have been initiated against the respondent under Rule 43(b). Such notice therefore, could cover any misconduct if committed within 4 years prior to 27-9-1993 meaning thereby it should have been committed during the period from 26-9-1989 up to 31-1-1993 when the respondent retired. Only in case of such a misconduct, departmental proceedings could have been initiated against the respondent under Rule 43(b). In such proceedings, if he was found guilty of misconduct he could have been properly proceeded against under Rule 139(a) and (b). On the facts of the present case it must be held, agreeing with the High Court that the notice dated 27-9-1993 invoking powers under Rule 139(a) and (b) was issued wholly on the ground of alleged past misconduct and was not based on the ground that service record of the respondent was not thoroughly satisfactory. So far as that ground was concerned, on a conjoint reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139(a) there is no escape from the conclusion that as the alleged misconduct was committed by the respondent prior to 4 years from the date on which the show-cause notice dated 27-9-1993 was issued, the appellant authority had no power to invoke Rule 139(a) and (b) against the respondent on the ground of proved misconduct. Consequently, it had to be held that proceedings under Rule 139 were wholly incompetent. The High Court was equally justified in quashing the final order dated 13-12-1993 as there is no proof of such a misconduct. No question of remanding the proceedings under Rule 139(a) and (b) would survive as the alleged grave misconduct could not be established in any departmental proceedings after the expiry of four years from 1986-87, as such proceedings would be clearly barred by Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(ii). Consequently the show-cause notice dated 27-9-1993 will have to be treated as stillborn and ineffective from its inception. Such a notice cannot be resorted to for supporting any fresh proceedings by way of remand. For all these reasons no case is made for our interference in this appeal. In the result appeal fails and is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.” 7. Per contra, Mr. Manav Poddar, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-I appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 30.01.2019. He further submits that Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules has rightly been applied in the case of the petitioner. 8. There is no order as to costs.” 7. Per contra, Mr. Manav Poddar, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-I appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 30.01.2019. He further submits that Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules has rightly been applied in the case of the petitioner. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence available on record, it transpires that the allegation against the petitioner is of the year 2007-08. Prior to retirement, no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. As per Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, there is requirement of providing hearing to the delinquent employee, which has not been done in the case in hand. The pension of the petitioner has also not been sanctioned as yet and in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Idris Ansari (supra), the stage for invoking Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules has not come as yet. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 30.1.2019, contained in Annexure-3 of the writ petition is quashed. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.