JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5416 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the decision taken by the authority as contained in memo no.1169 dated 25.08.2015, by which, the pension and gratuity of the writ petitioner permanently withheld under the provisions of Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule, has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- 3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he had joined on the post of Touring Veterinary Officer, Madhubani, Block West Champaran on 14.05.1979. The petitioner was thereafter, transferred to Mandar as Block Animal Husbandry Officer on 08.05.1990 and continued on the said post till the date of his retirement, i.e., on 30.06.2013. 4. An FIR dated 04.02.1996 was instituted by the department against several persons under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(c), (d) and (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, being RC No. 53(A)/Pat. for alleged embezzlement and misappropriation of Government funds from the Department. The petitioner was not named in the FIR, however, the charge sheet was submitted against him on 11.05.2000. thereafter, he was put under suspension vide order dated 06.07.2000 for the alleged involvement in embezzlement of funds in the Animal Husbandry Department. 5. The petitioner was taken into custody on 08.06.2000 and was later released on bail on 30.01.2001. An order of conviction of the petitioner in connection with RC No.53(A)/Pat was passed on 01.07.2009, wherein, the petitioner was awarded with the punishment of imprisonment of 5 years with a fine of Rs.11,00,000/- failing which, an additional punishment of custody of 21 months will be awarded. 6. The petitioner preferred a criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.708 of 2009 and vide order dated 15.09.2009, the petitioner was granted bail by this Court and the said appeal is still pending before this Court. 7. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he continued to be under suspension and retired under suspension on 30.06.2013. 6. The petitioner preferred a criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.708 of 2009 and vide order dated 15.09.2009, the petitioner was granted bail by this Court and the said appeal is still pending before this Court. 7. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he continued to be under suspension and retired under suspension on 30.06.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice being letter no.264/2015 P.Pa dated 13.04.2015 along with memo no.363 dated 26.03.2015 whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was directed to submit his clarification within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice as to why his pension and gratuity shall not be withheld for his alleged involvement in fodder scam case. The petitioner submitted reply dated 27.04.2015 to the show cause notice. 8. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that he has preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3390 of 2015 for quashing of letter dated 13.04.2015 with memo no.363 dated 26.03.2015 as also for payment of post retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, provident fund and subsistence allowance. 9. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents had filed counter affidavit dated 30.03.2016 wherein reference was drawn towards memo no.1169 dated 25.08.2015 wherein a decision with respect to withholding of petitioner’s pension and gratuity permanently has been taken in accordance with Rule 43(a) of Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, vide departmental notification memo no.1169 dated 25.08.2015. The petitioner was having no knowledge of the departmental notification dated 25.08.2015 and therefore, the same could not be challenged at the time of filing of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3390 of 2015. 10. The said notification was again challenged by way of interlocutory application being I.A. No.9695 of 2017 in W.P.(S) No.3390 of 2015 but the said interlocutory application, however, was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the penalty order dated 25.08.2015 by filing a fresh writ petition, hence, on a prayer being made, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 11. The writ petitioner has also made representation for grant of subsistence allowance as also for grant of gratuity, pension and other retiral benefits but the same has not been replied. 12. 11. The writ petitioner has also made representation for grant of subsistence allowance as also for grant of gratuity, pension and other retiral benefits but the same has not been replied. 12. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the writ petitioner has preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5416 of 2018 seeking therein the direction for quashing the order dated 25.08.2015 but the learned Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition, hence, the present appeal. 13. It appears from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner was posted as Touring Veterinary Officer, Madhubani, Block-West Champaran and after having joined his service on 14.05.1979, he was transferred to Mandar as Block Animal Husbandry Officer on 08.05.1990 and from there, he has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., on 30.06.2013. 14. As per the fact of the case that while the writ petitioner was posted at Mandar, a criminal case was instituted on 04.02.1996 for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(c), (d) and (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, being RC No. 53(A)/Pat. for alleged embezzlement and misappropriation of Government funds from the Department. Charge-sheet was submitted on 11.05.2000 and thereafter, he was put under suspension vide order dated 06.07.2000. He was taken into custody on 08.06.2000 and was later on released on bail on 30.01.2001. 15. The writ petitioner, while in service was convicted vide judgment dated 01.07.2009 passed in RC No. 53(A)/Patna and was awarded punishment of imprisonment of 5 years with a fine of Rs.11,00,000/-, failing which, he had to undergo an additional punishment of custody of 21 months. 16. Against the aforesaid Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the writ petitioner preferred criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 708 of 2009, which is pending before this Court for final hearing, however, the sentence was kept in abeyance, in consequence thereof, the writ petitioner has been released from judicial custody. 17. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that he continued to be under suspension and retired, as such on 30.06.2013. 17. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that he continued to be under suspension and retired, as such on 30.06.2013. He was served with show cause notice bearing letter no.264/2015 dated 13.04.2015 read with memo no.363 dated 26.03.2015, whereby and whereunder, he was directed to submit his clarification within 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice, as to why his pension and gratuity shall not be withheld for the alleged involvement in folder scam case and conviction and sentence passed in RC No.53(A)/96-Patna. The writ petitioner has filed reply. 18. The writ petitioner, thereafter, filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3390 of 2015, in which, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondents referring therein the memo no.1169 dated 25.08.2015, wherein, a decision with respect to withholding of petitioner’s pension and gratuity permanently, had been taken in accordance with Rule 43(a) of Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules. 19. The writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.08.2015 by way of interlocutory application being I.A. No.9695 of 2017 in W.P.(S) No.3390 of 2015. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the penalty order dated 25.08.2015 by way of fresh writ petition. 20. The writ petitioner has also made representation for grant of subsistence allowance as also for grant of gratuity, pension and other retiral benefits but the same has not been replied. 21. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the writ petitioner has preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5416 of 2018 seeking therein the direction for quashing the order dated 25.08.2015. 22. The State has appeared and taken the ground that the pension has been withheld on the ground that the appellant has been convicted in the criminal case pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, applying the provision of Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule, the decision has been taken for withholding the pension on permanent basis, vide impugned order dated 25.08.2015. 23. Learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the rival submission, has dismissed the writ petition by holding therein that the State government has every right to withheld or withdraw pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or found guilty of grave misconduct, against which, the present appeal. 24. Mr. 23. Learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the rival submission, has dismissed the writ petition by holding therein that the State government has every right to withheld or withdraw pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or found guilty of grave misconduct, against which, the present appeal. 24. Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted by pointing out the following infirmities, which has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition:- (i) Show cause notice has been issued under Rule 139 of the Pension Rule. It has been submitted that Rule 139 cannot be held applicable in a case of misconduct, rather, the Rule 139 is applicable only in a case where the service of the pensioners if not found to be thoroughly satisfactory. Here, it is not the case that the service of writ petitioner has not found to be thoroughly satisfactory, rather, it is a case where the pension has been decided to be withheld on the basis of the judgment of conviction passed in RC No. 53(A)/Patna (ii) The order has been passed by the authority withholding the pension permanently under the provision of rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule. Rule 43(a), in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, is also not applicable, reason being that the power under Rule 43(a) can be invoked only on the ground if the future conduct of the pensioner is found to be not good. (iii) Herein, the facts and circumstances of the given case is that the pension has been decided to be withheld in entirety on the ground of judgment of conviction for an offence occurred prior to the year 1996, i.e., the day when the FIR was instituted. Submission, therefore, has been made that the occurrence took place prior to the year 1996, cannot be said to be a future conduct, rather, it is a past conduct. (iv) It has been argued that at best, it is a case where the proceeding can be initiated under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rule, considering the past conduct of the appellant but the same can also not be said to be available herein, since, the order has been passed under Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule. 25. (iv) It has been argued that at best, it is a case where the proceeding can be initiated under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rule, considering the past conduct of the appellant but the same can also not be said to be available herein, since, the order has been passed under Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule. 25. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the basis of the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid fact and merely on taking note of the judgment of conviction, order dated 25.08.2015, by which, the pension has been withheld, has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition, hence, impugned order suffers from an error. 26. Per contra, Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned S.C.-III appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge that once the appellant has been convicted in a case pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act, he seizes the right to get the pensionery benefit which also includes gratuity. 27. The authority, considering the judgment of conviction, has issued show cause notice under Rule 139 of the Pension Rule, however, no order was passed under Rule 139, rather, the order has been passed under Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rules, based upon the statutory provision contained therein, the decision has been taken to withhold the pension as also the gratuity, hence, the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, has declined to interfere with the impugned decision particularly taking note of the judgment of conviction. 28. The show cause notice, although, has been issued under Rule 139 of the Pension Rule but merely by making wrong reference of the provision of law, the entire decision cannot vitiate on the settled principle that the power means actual conferment of power and merely because the wrong reference of provision has been made, the same cannot invalidate the decision so taken by the competent authority. 29. Learned counsel for the State, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, suffers from no error. 30. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 31. 29. Learned counsel for the State, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, suffers from no error. 30. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 31. This Court, on consideration of the factual aspect, is of the view that the following issue requires consideration:- (i) Whether in the given facts of the case, order passed under Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rules, can be said to be justified? (ii) Whether merely because, notice under Rule 139 of the Pension Rules has been issued, while the order has been passed under Rule 43(a), can the said order be said to be unjustified? (iii) Whether on the ground that the proper recourse has not been taken by the authority, will it be proper for this Court to remit the matter before the State to take recourse as per law? 32. All the issues are being discussed together, therefore, the same are being considered together. 33. This Court, before considering the aforesaid issues, deems it fit and proper to refer the statutory provision as contained under Rule 139(a), 139(b) and 139(c) and Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of the Pension Rules. 34. This Court, therefore, first requires to refer herein the provision as contained under Rule 139(a), 139(b) and 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, which is being quoted hereinbelow:- “139. (a) The full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. (c) The State Government reserve to themselves the powers of revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. (c) The State Government reserve to themselves the powers of revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. No such power shall however, be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, nor any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed.” 35. Sub-rule (a) of Rule 139 of the aforesaid rule provides that the full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course or unless the service rendered has been really approved. 36. Sub-rule (b) of Rule139 provides that if the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension can make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. 37. Sub-rule (c) of Rule 139 confers power upon the State Government of revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. It has further been provided therein that no such power shall however, be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, nor any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed. 38. It is further evident that there is difference between Rule 139(b) and 139(c). Sub-rule (b) confers power upon the sanctioning authority to reduce the pension whereas sub-rule (c) of Rule 139 vests power upon the State Government to revise the order passed by the pension sanctioning authority or any authority subordinate to the State. 39. It is evident from the interpretation of the provision of Rule 139(c) that in two eventualities, the State can invoke such power; if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct. 40. 39. It is evident from the interpretation of the provision of Rule 139(c) that in two eventualities, the State can invoke such power; if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct. 40. Herein, it also needs to refer the provision of Rule 43(a) and Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, which reads as under:- “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. 43. (b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right to 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; 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; (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); and (c) the Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation. 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; and (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; and (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.” 41. It is evident from the bare perusal of the provision of Rule 43(a) that the future good conduct has been made as an implied condition of every grant of pension. The Provincial Government reserves 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. 42. The stipulation made in the aforesaid provision explicitly clears that for every grant of pension, the future good conduct is an implied condition. 43. The word ‘every grant of pension’ means that the same is to be considered for pensioners who are getting the pension but in course thereof, if he has been found to be convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct, the Provincial Government reserves to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it. 44. 44. It is evident from the provision of Rule 43(b) that 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 : Subject to the condition 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; 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; (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); and (c) the Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. 45. The aforesaid conditions under the proviso (a) speak about the decision to be taken depending upon the condition nos.(i) to (iii) in a case of departmental proceeding. Proviso (b) speaks about the 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) and proviso (c) speaks about the Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. 46. It is thus, evident that in Rule 43(b), a proceeding is to be initiated for the purpose of withholding the pension whole or part of it, in a case of misconduct either in the departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding of grave misconduct or have caused pecuniary loss to the government. 47. 46. It is thus, evident that in Rule 43(b), a proceeding is to be initiated for the purpose of withholding the pension whole or part of it, in a case of misconduct either in the departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding of grave misconduct or have caused pecuniary loss to the government. 47. The explanation is also available therein, wherein, for the purpose of the rule-(a) speaks about the initiation of departmental proceeding as per which, it shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges were framed, against the pensioner are issued to him or, if the Government Servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date. Clause (b) speaks about the judicial proceedings which shall be deemed to have been instituted in a case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal court and in the case of the 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. 48. The fact of the given case is that the appellant, while serving in the Animal Husbandry Department has been convicted for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(c), (d) and (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, vide judgment of conviction dated 01.07.2009, while the appellant was in service. Subsequent thereto, he has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 49. The authority concerned has issued a show cause notice under Rule 139 of the Pension Rule, asking the explanation as to why the pension, be not withheld. 50. The reply has been furnished. The State has issued the impugned order in exercise of power conferred under Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule by withholding whole of the pension. 51. The same has been challenged, but the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with. The propriety of the said order is under consideration in this case. 52. The provision of Rule 43(a) provides for making a future good conduct as an implied condition of every grant of pension, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. 53. The propriety of the said order is under consideration in this case. 52. The provision of Rule 43(a) provides for making a future good conduct as an implied condition of every grant of pension, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. 53. The word ‘future good conduct’ denotes that if the pensioners are getting pension but subsequent thereto, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct then, the Provincial Government will have jurisdiction to withhold or withdraw the pension or any part of it, while, Rule 43(b) speaks about the past misconduct. 54. The same is explicitly clear from the aforesaid provision that if the State Government shall have power to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss. 55. The proviso makes it clear that the same pertains to the past conduct which would be evident from the stipulation made under proviso (a)(i) & (ii), wherein, it has been stipulated that such departmental proceeding if not instituted while the government servant was on duty either before retirement or during 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. 56. Likewise, the judicial proceedings, has been dealt with under proviso (b), wherein, it has been provided that the 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), i.e., shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before institution of such proceedings. 57. Rule 43(b), therefore, confers power upon the State Government to deal with the issue of withholding/withdrawing pension on the basis of the past conduct of the employee. 58. It further appears from the provision of 43(b) that the four years limitation is equally applicable for the departmental as also for the judicial proceedings. 59. 57. Rule 43(b), therefore, confers power upon the State Government to deal with the issue of withholding/withdrawing pension on the basis of the past conduct of the employee. 58. It further appears from the provision of 43(b) that the four years limitation is equally applicable for the departmental as also for the judicial proceedings. 59. But such stipulation is not available under the provision of Rule 43(a), rather, the word ‘future good conduct’ has been made as an implied condition, hence, the provision of Rule 43(a) is only with respect to the power to be exercised by the Provincial Government for withholding or withdrawing the pension based upon the future good conduct of such pensioners. 60. The interpretation of the provision of Rule 139, 43(a) and 43(b) has been made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari, reported in 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 56, wherein, the very provision of Rule 139, 43(a) and 43(b) has well been considered, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are being referred as under:- “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. 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. 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). 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). 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…. .… ….” 61. 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…. .… ….” 61. Reverting back to the facts of the case, herein, the admitted fact is that the FIR was instituted in the year 1996 for a conduct prior to the year 1996. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment of conviction dated 01.07.2009. On attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., w.e.f. 30.06.2013, a notice was issued under the provision of Rule 139 of the Pension Rule by asking the appellant as to why the pension be not withheld. 62. The State Government has taken decision for withholding whole of the pension under the provision of Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule. 63. The purport of the provision of Rule 43(a) is only to be taken recourse for the future conduct which has been made as an implied condition of every grant of pension. 64. Admittedly, herein, the basis of withholding the pension, cannot be said to be future conduct of the appellant, rather, it was a conduct while the appellant was in service, since, the FIR was instituted on 04.02.1996, therefore, the judicial proceeding will be said to be initiated, the day when the charge-sheet was submitted, i.e., on 11.05.2000, the day when the appellant was in service, however, he was put under suspension. The appellant was convicted vide judgment of conviction dated 01.07.2009. 65. This Court, on the basis of the fact that the judgment of conviction is based upon the past conduct and as such, it is not a case where the order is to be passed under the provision of Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule, rather, it is a case where the order was required to be passed under the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rule. 66. The rider of initiating the proceeding under the provision of Rule 43(b) will not be applicable herein, since, the judicial proceeding already begun, the day when the charge-sheet was submitted, hence, in that view of the matter also, the provision of Rule 43(b) is to be taken recourse for the purpose of compensating the loss sustained to the State Exchequer. 67. 67. It is further evident that the show cause notice was issued under Rule 139 and the order was passed under Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule. 68. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, is of the considered view that since, the decision is required to be taken for withholding pension on the basis of the past conduct of the appellant, therefore, the show cause notice which was issued under Rule 139 of the Pension Rule, is absolutely unwarranted, since, the power conferred under Rule 139(b) and (c) is to be exercised when the service of the concerned pensioner is found to be not thoroughly satisfactory, as per the detailed discussion made hereinabove. 69. Further, the order passed under Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule based upon the show cause issued under Rule 139 is also unwarranted, in view of the fact that the pension is to be withheld on the basis of the past conduct of the appellant and not on the basis of the future good conduct since, the occurrence of leading to institution of first information report was of the year 1996 and the proceeding was commenced, the day when the charge-sheet was submitted, i.e., on 11.05.2000. 70. We, after having discussed the factual aspect as also the legal position and on consideration of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, have found that the impugned order dated 25.08.2015 has been declined to be interfered with by making note of the provision of Rule 43(a). 71. Further, the appellant since has been convicted on 01.07.2009, i.e., during the service tenure while he has to retire from service on 30.06.2013, as such, his claim for retiral benefits is inadmissible under the provision of Rule 43(a) of the pension rule. 72. 71. Further, the appellant since has been convicted on 01.07.2009, i.e., during the service tenure while he has to retire from service on 30.06.2013, as such, his claim for retiral benefits is inadmissible under the provision of Rule 43(a) of the pension rule. 72. This Court with due respect to the order passed by the learned Single Judge is respectfully in disagreement by taking into consideration the fact of this case, wherein, the power has been conferred under Rule 43(a) has been said to be permissible, even though, the conduct of the appellant based upon the judgment of conviction which is on the ground of proved charge in the judicial proceeding of an offence committed while the appellant was in service, hence, the said conduct cannot be said to be the future one, since, the provision of Rule 43(a) cannot be held applicable merely because the appellant has been convicted, while he was in service, rather, the very purport of the provision of Rule 43(a) and (b) is required to be considered. 73. Since, Rule 43(a) speaks about the future good conduct making it as an implied condition of every grant of pension, while, Rule 43(b) speaks about the past conduct as has been discussed. 74. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the order impugned suffers from an error. 75. Accordingly, the show cause notice issued under Rule 139 of the Pension Rule and the order issued under Rule 43(a) have been held to be unjustified and illegal. 76. In view thereof, both the show cause notice issued under Rule 139 of the Pension Rule and the order issued under Rule 43(a) are hereby quashed and set aside. 77. Accordingly, the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.5416 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. 78. The question now arises that on the technical ground the appellant can be made scot free? 79. The answer of this Court will be in negative, based upon the position of law that on technicality, no one can be allowed to take advantage. 80. This Court, considering the aforesaid position and taking into consideration the purport of the provision of Rule 43(b), as per the detailed discussion made hereinabove, is of the considered view that proceeding is required to be issued under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rule. 81. 80. This Court, considering the aforesaid position and taking into consideration the purport of the provision of Rule 43(b), as per the detailed discussion made hereinabove, is of the considered view that proceeding is required to be issued under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rule. 81. Therefore, it is a fit case where the matter is to be remitted before the authority for taking decision in the light of the provision as contained under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rule. 82. Herein, it requires to refer herein that the provision of Rule 43(b) confers power of withholding 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. 83. It is, thus, evident that the power conferred under Rule 43(b) does not confer power upon the State Government to withhold the pension as a whole, rather, the same depends upon the detailed calculation of the loss sustained by the Government, so as to compensate, the State Exchequer of the pecuniary loss sustained due to the finding of the guilt either in departmental or judicial proceeding. 84. The aforesaid provision thus, clarifies that before issuance of show cause notice, it is the bounded duty of the State Government to make a calculation of the loss sustained due to the finding of misconduct in the departmental or judicial proceeding and by assessing the same for the purpose of compensating the State Exchequer from the concerned pensioner of its accountability. 85. The aforesaid statutory provision, thus, mandates an exercise to be taken by the State authority before coming to the conclusion, as to what quantum of loss has been caused due to misconduct by the employee before taking any decision of withholding either whole or part of it, otherwise, there was no reason to insert the words ‘withdrawing a pension or any part of it’. 86. 86. The words ‘withdrawing a pension’ means that if loss which is to be compensated requires recovery from the pensioner by withholding the pension as a whole, then in that circumstances, the requirement as per law, is that the entire pensionery benefits are to be withheld. 87. But, as per the accountability of the concerned pensioner, a part of the pension has been found to be sufficient for compensating the pecuniary loss sustained to the State Exchequer, then the recovery is to be made as per the aforesaid proportion. 88. This Court, in view of the aforesaid interpretation of the statutory provision, therefore, is of the view that the State Government is required to calculate the loss sustained to the State Exchequer by conducting a detailed inquiry. 89. Thereafter, a show cause notice is to be given to the appellant by giving a proposed punishment of quantum of pension which is to be recovered in percentile and then, only on consideration of the defence, the order for recovery of pension is to be passed. 90. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the positive direction is required to be passed upon the State Government. 91. The aforesaid exercise is to be completed within the period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 92. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed with the aforesaid observation/direction made hereinabove.