JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. Heard Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant /Respondent no. 3. 2. Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 / Petitioner. 3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.01.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.5065 of 2014 whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the impugned order as contained in Memo No.1542 dated 19.02.2014 directing deduction of 5 % pension amount of the writ petitioner has been quashed and a direction has been issued to release all consequential benefits to the writ petitioner forthwith. 4. The undisputed facts are that the writ Petitioner joined State government service on 14.04.1972 on the post of Engineer Assistant and after rendering continuous service of about 34 years retired on 30.11.2006 while working under the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand and started receiving his pension after its fixation. No departmental proceeding was ever initiated against this petitioner while he was in service. 5. The writ Petitioner received memo of charge dated 27.07.2009 alongwith a copy of a resolution bearing Memo No.2710 dated 28.07.2009 issued by the present appellant wherein a decision to initiate departmental enquiry against the writ Petitioner under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules was taken and the writ Petitioner was directed to submit his defence before the Enquiry Officer. It is further not in dispute that the allegations for which departmental enquiry was initiated related to the period when the writ petitioner was posted as Superintending Engineer at Sone High Level Canal Circle Aurangabad from 17.02.2004 to 10.10.2004. 6. The specific case of the writ petitioner was that admittedly the departmental proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules was initiated after more than 4 years from the alleged date of occurrence and hence, the institution / initiation of the departmental proceedings against the writ petitioner after his retirement under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules was itself illegal, void ab-initio and was against the proviso (a)(ii) as contained in Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. 7. 7. Case of the present appellant before the learned writ court was that after cadre allocation between the newly created State of Jharkhand and Bihar, Water Resources Department, State of Bihar informed the Water resources Department, Jharkhand vide Letter No. 79 dated 24.02.2009 that it was decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner under Section 43(b) of the Pension Rules for prima facie proved charges of committing irregularity. Accordingly, the Water Resources Department, Jharkhand issued charge-sheet and resolution for initiation of departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner vide Departmental Memo No. 2710 dated 28.07.2009. The competent authority examined the enquiry report as well as the other documents and held that the writ petitioner caused huge financial loss to the state by committing irregularity and against proved charges of causing loss to the State Government and the writ petitioner was awarded punishment of 5% deduction in pension vide the impugned order. 8. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, the learned writ court allowed the writ petition. Argument of the Appellant / Respondent No.3 9. While assailing the judgment passed by the learned writ court, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following points: - a. The Hon’ble Single Judge has not taken into consideration that an amount of Rs.17 lacs (approximately) has been defalcated and the proceeding has been initiated as per the law and the writ petitioner was granted proper opportunity. b. The Hon’ble Single Judge has not taken into consideration the concluding part of the enquiry report of the conducting officer. c. The nature of allegation against the petitioner is serious and as per Rule 43(b) of Pension Rules, a decision has been taken to deduct 5% pension of the writ petitioner. He has stated that initiation of departmental proceeding was ordered by the competent authority, but due to cadre division and allocation of the writ petitioner in Jharkhand cadre, he could not be proceeded. He has submitted that for the same misconduct others have been punished in accordance with law. d. The Hon’ble Single Judge has also failed to appreciate the fact that the project was of high-level canal construction and any enquiry which would be conducted in such a matter will take a reasonably longer time. He has submitted that for the same misconduct others have been punished in accordance with law. d. The Hon’ble Single Judge has also failed to appreciate the fact that the project was of high-level canal construction and any enquiry which would be conducted in such a matter will take a reasonably longer time. The Hon’ble Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the writ petitioner was involved in misappropriation of fund and irregularities of very high level and therefore, he cannot be allowed to take benefit of the provisions of law which is made for the protection of employees against undue harassment by the employer. e. As per the supplementary affidavit Rs.1,246.25 has been deducted, which is 5% of the pension and presently, he is getting Rs.23,678.75 per month. f. As the writ petitioner has defalcated an amount of Rs.17 lacs (approximately), so he was not entitled for any relief. Argument of the Respondent No.1 / writ petitioner 10. The learned counsel for the original writ petitioner opposed the prayer of the appellant and submitted that the case of the writ petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Others Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56. Point for consideration 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the point to be decided in the present case is whether the departmental enquiry and the consequent punishment of deduction of 5% pension was barred under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules and whether the learned writ court was right in allowing the writ petition. Findings of this Court 12. It is an admitted fact on record that the alleged occurrence for which departmental proceeding was initiated and consequently, the order impugned before the learned writ court for deduction of pension was passed, took place during the period from 17.02.2004 to 09.10.2004. This fact is also apparent from the concluding portion of the enquiry report of the departmental proceedings and the learned counsel for the appellant has not drawn the attention of this Court towards any finding of the enquiry officer or any other material to dispute this factual position. This fact is also apparent from the concluding portion of the enquiry report of the departmental proceedings and the learned counsel for the appellant has not drawn the attention of this Court towards any finding of the enquiry officer or any other material to dispute this factual position. The Enquiry Officer had given an opinion that in view of provision as contained in Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(ii), the proceeding against the writ petitioner is not maintainable and the matter was referred to the disciplinary authority for taking appropriate decision in this regard. Admittedly the petitioner had retired on 30.11.2006 and the departmental proceeding was sought to be initiated under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules vide Memo No.2710 dated 28.07.2009. As per explanation (a) of Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules, 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. Admittedly, the petitioner was not under suspension and no departmental proceedings were initiated against him before his retirement for the alleged allegations involved in this case. Thus, the proceedings sought to be initiated vide Memo No.2710 dated 28.07.2009 was for the incident which took place much beyond the prescribed period of 4 years under proviso (a)(ii) to Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules. 13. This Court has gone through the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Idris Ansari (Supra) and finds that in the said case, interalia, the provisions of proviso (a)(ii) to Rule 43 (b) read with Rule 139 of the Pension Rules were under consideration. In the said case, the government had initiated department proceedings against the concerned employee vide notice dated 17.10.1987 for allegations relating to the year 1986-87 and imposed punishment on 6.6.1992 which was set-aside by Hon’ble Patna High Court on 16.11.1992 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice with a liberty to the State government to proceed afresh. Thereafter, the concerned employee retired on 31.01.1993. Thereafter, the concerned employee retired on 31.01.1993. A fresh Show-cause dated 27.09.1993 was issued to the employee intimating him that he had already retired from service and the period of charge was prior to 4 years, no action could be taken under Rule 43(b) and the Government had decided to issue show cause notice under Rule 139. The provisions of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the pension rules were interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has been quoted in the impugned judgement of the learned writ court and the Hon’ble Supreme court ultimately held the Show-cause notice dated 27.09.1993 still born as the alleged misconduct could not be established in any departmental proceedings after expiry of 4 years from 1986-87 and such proceedings would be clearly barred by Rule 43(b) proviso (a) (ii) of the Pension Rules. 14. The learned writ court has recorded a finding that the cause of action to initiate department proceedings against the writ petitioner arose between 17.02.2004 to 09.10.2004 and the departmental proceeding was initiated on 28.07.2009 and accordingly, the same was in respect of the event which took place beyond 4 years from the date of institution of proceedings. The learned writ court also considered that as per explanation (a) of Rule 43 (b) of Bihar Pension Rules, 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. The learned writ court held that the departmental proceeding is deemed to have been initiated only with effect from 27.07.2009 i.e., the date when the memorandum of charge was issued or on 28.07.2009 i.e. when the resolution was passed to initiate departmental enquiry. The learned writ court also considered that even if the end of the financial year is taken into consideration with regard to the date of alleged occurrence, the financial year 2004-05 will end on 31st March, 2005, which is beyond 4 years from the date of institution of the proceedings. The learned writ court allowed the writ petition holding that the proceedings against the writ petitioner was barred by Rule 43(b) proviso (a) (ii) of the Bihar Pension Rules after considering the ratio of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56 (State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Mohd. The learned writ court allowed the writ petition holding that the proceedings against the writ petitioner was barred by Rule 43(b) proviso (a) (ii) of the Bihar Pension Rules after considering the ratio of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56 (State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari) holding that the case of the writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment. 15. This Court also finds that the case of the writ petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment of Mohd. Idris Ansari (supra). The learned counsel for appellant has not been able to distinguish the said judgment either on facts or on law and has stressed on the quantum of financial irregularities alleged to be involved against the writ petitioner. 16. This Court is of the considered view that the quantum of money involved in the alleged irregularities cannot decide the legality or illegality of the proceedings. The aforesaid provision of the Pension Rules clearly bars the State to proceed against a retired employee for the incident which relates to a period beyond 4 years from the date of initiation of departmental proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Cadre division due to state reorganization is cited as the explanation for delay in initiating the department proceedings against the petitioner, but the same has no bearing in the matter. There is no provision under the Pension Rules to extend the time limit provided under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules to initiate department proceedings and such time limit cannot be relaxed as upon efflux of time period, a substantive right is crystallized in favour of the petitioner. 17. This Court is of the considered view that the pensionary benefits in the instant case is governed by the Pension Rules and the writ petitioner cannot be deprived of the same except in accordance with the procedure established by law. This Court is of the considered view that if the pension is to be deducted, the same was required to be done as per procedure prescribed by the Pension Rules or not at all. This Court is of the considered view that if the pension is to be deducted, the same was required to be done as per procedure prescribed by the Pension Rules or not at all. Right to receive full pension in accordance with the Pension Rules is a valuable legal vested right of the writ petitioner and belated action of the State which was impugned in the writ petition has been rightly quashed by the learned writ court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned writ court. 18. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.