ORDER : (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) 1. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department and others have assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.03.2021 in W.P. (S) No. 6876 of 2019, whereby the writ application of the writ petitioner was allowed and the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority was quashed. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Engineer in Bhagalpur in the erstwhile State of Bihar on 26.01.1979 and on attaining age of retirement he was superannuated from service on 29.02.2008 from the post of Executive Engineer. After his retirement, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, as applicable to the State of Jharkhand, vide resolution No.445 dated 05.02.2009 alleging inter alia therein that there was violation of departmental rules in tender invitation, tender disposal, work allocation and back dating by the writ petitioner with regard to work of Tender Invitation Information No. 1/05-06. After the enquiry, a report was submitted by the Enquiring Officer on 10.07.2011 wherein none of the charges against the petitioner were found to be proved and it was observed by the Enquiring Officer that the petitioner should be exonerated. However, thereafter the petitioner was served with a letter No. 5748 dated 30.09.2013 issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand, wherein he was informed that the allegations leveled against him have been found to be true and Government is in consideration of imposing punishment of deduction of 5% of pension under Rule 139 of the Pension Rules. He was granted 15 days’ time to file show-cause against the 2nd notice proposing the punishment. The petitioner denied the allegations and submitted reply on 28.10.2013. After departmental proceeding, an order vide Memo No.1543 dated 19.02.20214 was issued wherein the petitioner was informed that he has been inflicted with punishment of deduction of 5% from his pension under Rule 139 of the Pension Rules. Accordingly, the Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand was also intimated vide letter No.2198 dated 11.03.2014 recommending deduction of 5% of pension of the petitioner for fifteen years from the date of his superannuation. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same but the same was also dismissed on 07.01.2016. 3. Accordingly, the Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand was also intimated vide letter No.2198 dated 11.03.2014 recommending deduction of 5% of pension of the petitioner for fifteen years from the date of his superannuation. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same but the same was also dismissed on 07.01.2016. 3. While considering the matter at hand, the learned Single Judge took into consideration Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules which provides that a departmental proceeding, if instituted in course of service of a Government employee, would be deemed to be a departmental proceeding even after retirement of the delinquent employee for the purpose of imposing punishment of withholding part or full of the pension, subject to certain limitations, as contained in proviso to Rule 43(b). The learned Single Judge further held that the foremost requirement under Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is that there must be a pecuniary loss caused to the Government if the pension is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct. The learned Single Judge further held that under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules it has been provided that if the service of a delinquent employee is not found to be thoroughly satisfactory, the sanctioning authority of pension has got power to make reduction in the amount of pension. Under Rule 139(c) of the same Rules, the State Government has been vested with the revisional power against the order passed by the sanctioning authority subject to limitation of three years. The learned Single Judge further held that admittedly the petitioner retired from service on 29.02.2008 and during his service tenure, no proceeding was ever initiated against him. It is settled legal proposition that if a proceeding has been initiated or not completed in course of service under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the same cannot be converted under Rule 13(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, rather the same will be deemed to have been converted under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, as has already been held in the case of Shambhu Saran Vs. The State of Bihar, 2000(1) PLJR 665 (FB), wherein at paragraph 8 the Patna High Court held that in its opinion, once such proceeding is started, even if the person concerned retires from service, such proceeding can be continued and it is not required that there must be any Government order to that effect before it can be allowed to continue. As a sequel thereto, the learned Single Judge held that the writ petition should be allowed and the impugned orders should be quashed. 4. In assailing the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the counsel for the State would submit the learned Single Judge misdirected himself to come to the conclusion as aforesaid in view of the fact that the proceeding can be initiated against the petitioner (respondent herein) within four years of his retirement. 5. However, we find that Rule 43 of Chapter III of the general provisions relating to grant of pension provides that the State Government further reserves themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing the pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specific period, and the right of ordering for recovery from the pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. 6. A proviso has been inserted and for the purpose of this case, sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Rule 43 is relevant, which provides that such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty either before retirement and during re-employment, shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before institution of such proceedings. 7. In this case, the allegation of misconduct relates to November, 2005 and the charge-sheet has been submitted on 5th February, 2009 and, therefore, it comes within the limitation of four years and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in initiating the proceedings against the petitioner (respondent herein). However, the punishment has been awarded invoking Rule 139 of the aforesaid Rules which provides that 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. However, the punishment has been awarded invoking Rule 139 of the aforesaid Rules which provides that 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. Clause (b) of Rule 139 provides that if the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such deduction in the amount as it thinks proper. 8. Thus, Rule 43(b) and Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules provide for two different kinds of situations. Rule 43(b) provides for punishment as a result of the finding of guilty of misconduct in a departmental proceedings or a judicial proceedings, whereas, Rule 139(b) provides that the service of an employee not thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension has a right to make certain deduction. Both these provisions operate into two different fields and it should not be confused with each other. In this case, though the show-cause impugned (Annexure 2) is a show-cause which provides that he has been found guilty as for as the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, the punishment has been inflicted by invoking Rule 139(b) of the said Pension Rule, which, in our opinion, is contrary to the law laid down. There is no finding on the part of the pension sanctioning authority that the services of the petitioner (respondent herein) were not thoroughly satisfactory, rather he bases his finding on the disciplinary authority’s findings. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference, though we have dealt the matter in a different context legally. 9. Viewing the matter from another angle, it is seen that as far Annexure 1, the petitioner was found not guilty of any offence. There was some observation regarding non-compliance of the timeline in finalizing the tender. The timeline was 07 days. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the two days, the offices were closed for the weekend i.e. being Saturday and Sunday, and the petitioner had completed the tender process within 05 days, no misconduct has been committed. 10. Be that as it may, there is a clear-cut finding on the part of the Enquiring Officer that for the alleged commission/omission on the part of the petitioner, the Department did not suffer any pecuniary loss. 10. Be that as it may, there is a clear-cut finding on the part of the Enquiring Officer that for the alleged commission/omission on the part of the petitioner, the Department did not suffer any pecuniary loss. However, instead of accepting the report, the disciplinary authority issued a second show-cause to the petitioner (respondent herein) asking why 5% of the pension be not deducted. We are of the considered opinion that the principles of natural justice require that once the Enquiring Officer has come to a conclusion that the petitioner or the employee is not guilty of any misconduct, the disciplinary authority has a liberty to come to a different finding on appreciation/re-appreciation of facts, but, before coming to a such finding, he must record the reasons for coming to such a conclusion and the exact reason for such different conclusion should be intimated to the person concerned, i.e. the employee, and he should be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause about his objection to the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. In this case, admittedly no notice was given to the petitioner, much less any reason was recorded by the disciplinary authority regarding his differing with the final opinion rendered by the Enquiring Officer. In that view of the matter, the case of the petitioner sits on a better footing since these issues was not discussed or dealt by the learned Single Judge. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants-State would further argue that even if it is found that there is some procedural irregularity in the manner in which the disciplinary authority proceeded with the imposition of penalty, then also, the mater should have been relegated to the disciplinary authority. However, in this connection, we are of the opinion that in the meantime, more than 18 years have lapsed, as the alleged misconduct, without affecting the State exchequer, was allegedly committed in the month of November, 2005 and the charge-sheet was submitted in the year 2009. So, at this stage, after a lapse of more than a decade of retirement of the petitioner (respondent herein), no useful purpose would be served by relegating the matter again to the disciplinary authority. In that view of the matter, we find no justifiable cause in allowing the Letters Patent Appeal even in part to relegate the matter back to the disciplinary authority. 12. In that view of the matter, we find no justifiable cause in allowing the Letters Patent Appeal even in part to relegate the matter back to the disciplinary authority. 12. We may also take note of the fact that in the meantime, in a Contempt proceedings, the Contemnor appearing before the National Lok Adalat on 13.08.2022 has submitted that the dispute has been referred for determination to the National Lok Adalat and the parties have compromised and settled the case/matter up to the extent of award and the Award has been passed in terms of settlement as per the order enclosed thereto. It is further borne out from the records that in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 586 of 2021 on 13.08.2022 the matter was listed before the National Lok Adalat for adjudication between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted before this Court that the State has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal and the admitted payment to be made to the writ petitioner subject to outcome of this Letters Patent Appeal and, therefore, the Contempt application was disposed of. However, as yet, the payment has not been made. If that being the situation, we express our concern over the way the cases are being handled on behalf of the State. 13. With such directions and observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 14. All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. 15. No orders as to costs. 16. Urgent Certified copies as per Rules.