JUDGMENT : Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer 1. The instant appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5009 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the decision taken by the authority withholding the pension to the extent of 10 per cent for two years. Facts 2. The brief fact of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which reads as under:- 3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he has retired from the post of Engineer-in-Chief, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi on 28.2.2022. There is an allegation that while he was posted as Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Urban Circle, Ranchi, he technically sanctioned a construction of brick masonry Channel with RCC Culvert in 1st phase pipe in filtration plant campus at Rukka under DW & S, S/R Head Works Division, Ranchi for a sum of Rs.26,22,247.00/- on 10.12.2012. 4. It is the case of the writ petitioner, appellant herein, that the entire service period of the writ petitioner was unblemished, as he was promoted from the post of Assistant Engineer and ultimately to the post of Engineer-in-Chief. 5. After 15 days from the date of his superannuation, the writ petitioner was served with a show cause dated 15.3.2022 alleging therein that he technically sanctioned the aforesaid work, but within one year of the said work, the brick guard wall collapsed due to defect in the design, thus, the services of the writ petitioner was held unsatisfactory and in view of the aforesaid unsatisfactory service, the Government was intended to invoke the Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. 6. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner while posted as Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Urban Circle, Ranchi, has technically sanctioned a construction of brick masonry Channel with RCC Culvert in 1st phase pipe in filtration plant campus at Rukka under DW & S, S/R Head Works Division, Ranchi. 7. After rendering his service, the writ petitioner has superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2022. 7. After rendering his service, the writ petitioner has superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2022. The respondent-authority has issued show cause notice on 15.03.2022 after 15 days from the date of his superannuation alleging therein that he technically sanctioned the aforesaid work but within one year of the said work, the brick guard wall collapsed due to defect in the design, thus, the services of the writ petitioner was held unsatisfactory. 8. The respondents-authorities, in view of the aforesaid allegation by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, has passed the order on 09.09.2022, by which, the punishment has been inflicted with penalty of reduction of 10 per cent pension for two years. 9. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, has approached to this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5009 of 2022. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the power which has been invoked under the provision of Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules has correctly been applied, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant 10. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order that:- (i) The provision of Rule 139 as contained under Jharkhand Pension Rules is not all applicable, in view of the fact that the aforesaid statutory provision confers power upon the State to reduce the pension only in a case, if the service of the employee has not found to be thoroughly satisfactory or in the case of grave misconduct that too, such decision can only be taken within 3 years from the date of pension having been sanctioned by the sanctioning authority. But herein, it is not the case of the State that the service of the writ petitioner has not found to be thoroughly satisfactory, rather, the writ petitioner has been given promotion thrice, rather, only on the basis of one instance, the service of the writ petitioner has been found to be not thoroughly satisfactory. Hence, the provision of Rule 139 cannot be said to be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground of one irregularity. Hence, the provision of Rule 139 cannot be said to be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground of one irregularity. (ii) Further, the provision of Rule 139 cannot be said to be applicable in view of the fact that there is no finding of grave misconduct and on that condition also, the provision of Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, cannot be applied by the State while reducing the pension. (iii) The provision of Rule 43-b of the Jharkhand pension Rules since has barred the initiation of the proceeding, as per the explanation furnished under Rule 43-b(i) that no decision can be taken by the State in withholding the whole or part of the pension, if the occurrence is beyond the period of 4 years from the date of institution of such proceeding. (iv) Herein, the occurrence took place on 10.12.2012 and on the aforesaid alleged commission of irregularity, the decision was taken by issuance of show cause as contained in memo no.1351 dated 15.03.2022, i.e., after lapse of about more than 9 years and hence, in view of the applicability of the period of limitation of 4 years, the pension whole or part of it, cannot be withheld in view of the provision of Rule 43-b of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. 11. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner by relying upon the judgment rendered 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 has submitted that the order impugned suffers from an error and hence, not sustainable in the eye of law. Arguments of the learned counsel for the Respondent-State 12. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned SC (Mines)-III appearing for the Respondent-State has defended the impugned order. 13. It has been submitted by him that there is no error in the impugned order, reason being that the pension of the writ petitioner withheld for two years by withholding it to the extent of 10 per cent on the ground that his service has not found to be thoroughly satisfactory on the basis of his involvement in granting the technical sanction, due to which, brick guard wall was finally collapsed. 14. 14. The contention has been raised that since due to lapses committed on the part of the writ petitioner, the State has suffered pecuniary loss and hence, 10 per cent of pension for two years has been withheld exercising the power conferred under the provision of Rule 139. 15. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari (supra). 16. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State based upon the aforesaid argument has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order, hence, the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed. Analysis 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 18. This Court, in order to consider the aforesaid grounds and the arguments, deems it fit and proper to refer the provision of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, which read as under:- “43 (b) 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 proceedings 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. (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 proceeding; (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. 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.” “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. 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.” 19. 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.” 19. It is evident from the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules that the State Government has been conferred with the power to deal with the pensioner who has been found to be involved in the misconduct and in case thereof, if there is any finding of misconduct either in the departmental or judicial proceeding, the State Government will have jurisdiction to withhold whole or part of the pension, however, subject to certain riders, as referred in the explanation contained in the provision of Rule 43(b), as referred hereinabove. 20. The provision of Rule 43(b) thus stipulates that the pension can be withheld, whole or part, in case of finding of misconduct either in the departmental or judicial proceeding. Rule 43(b) contains certain explanation wherein the date of initiation of departmental proceeding, the date of commencement of the judicial proceeding along with a rider of limitation for initiation of proceeding under Rule 43(b) for creating the period of limitation of four years in between the date of occurrence and date of institution then only the proceeding under rule 43(b) can be initiated against the public servant who has superannuated from service. 21. It is evident from the provision of Rule 139(a) that the full pension admissible under the rule is not to be given as a matter of course or unless the service rendered has been really approved. The Sub-rule (b) thereof provides that if the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. The aforesaid provision does stipulate that the pension sanctioning authority will have power to make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper if the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory. 22. The aforesaid provision does stipulate that the pension sanctioning authority will have power to make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper if the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory. 22. The 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. 23. The provision of Rule 139 thus provides that the pension sanctioning authority will have power to reduce the amount of pension in case the service not found to be thoroughly satisfactory. However, the State Government reserves the right for revising the order relating to pension in two conditions, i.e., (i) if the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory; or (ii) that there was proof of grave misconduct. 24. Thus, the difference in between the provision of Rule 43(b) and rule 139(c) is that while on the one hand the provision of Rule 43(b) only speaks about the finding of misconduct either in the departmental or judicial proceeding while the provision of Rule 139(c) provides power upon the authority to reduce the amount of pension. The State Government has been reserved with the power to revise the order of pension passed by the subordinate authority under its control. 25. Therefore, there is condition in Rule 139(c), i.e., in case the service of a pensioner has not been found to be thoroughly satisfactory or there must be proof of grave misconduct. While under the provision of Rule 43(b) there must be a finding of misconduct either in departmental or judicial proceeding. 26. It is further evident from both these provisions that the provision of Rule 43(b) is to be exercised which is to be based upon the finding of misconduct either in the departmental or judicial proceeding. While under the provision of Rule 43(b) there must be a finding of misconduct either in departmental or judicial proceeding. 26. It is further evident from both these provisions that the provision of Rule 43(b) is to be exercised which is to be based upon the finding of misconduct either in the departmental or judicial proceeding. While under the provision of Rule 139(c) it is not based upon the finding of misconduct, rather, the service having not been found to be thoroughly satisfactory or there is proof of grave misconduct. 27. It is settled that the State Government cannot take recourse of the provision of Rule 139(c) in a situation if the proceeding under Rule 43(b) is not permissible due to the expiry of the period of limitation of four years. Both the provisions are on two different parameters. 28. The implication of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139(c) has also been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Idris Ansari (supra), upon which, both the parties have relied upon and as such, it is incumbent upon this Court to refer the said judgment in order to consider the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. 29. It is evident from the factual aspect involved in the case of State of Bihar vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari (supra) that the appellant, State of Bihar has brought in challenge the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court whereby writ petition was allowed filed by the respondent. In the said writ petition, the respondent had challenged initiation of fresh departmental proceedings against him by issuing a notice dated 17-7-1993 and also a show-cause notice dated 27-9-1993 calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules for withholding of 70 per cent of pension. He also challenged the final order dated 13-12-1993 passed in exercise of power under Rule 139(a) and (b) of the Rules to withhold 70 per cent of pension. All these challenges were upheld by the judicature of Patna High Court. Thereafter, appeal was presented before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 30. He also challenged the final order dated 13-12-1993 passed in exercise of power under Rule 139(a) and (b) of the Rules to withhold 70 per cent of pension. All these challenges were upheld by the judicature of Patna High Court. Thereafter, appeal was presented before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 30. The Hon’ble Apex Court while taking in to consideration of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 has observed that if the State Government finds that the service record is not thoroughly satisfactory or 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. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted 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. 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.” 31. Further, the consideration has been given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, wherein, both the provisions have been said to be applicable on different field. 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.” 31. Further, the consideration has been given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, wherein, both the provisions have been said to be applicable on different field. While, the provision of Rule 43(b) is to be applicable in a case where there is finding of grave misconduct either in departmental or judicial proceeding which led the State to suffer the pecuniary loss, then in such circumstances, the provision of Rule 43(b) is to be invoked for withholding the whole or part of the pension, subject to certain conditions as contained under Rule 43(b) of Pension Rules. 32. It has further been stipulated under the provision of Rule 43(b) that the departmental or judicial proceeding will be said to be initiated when the memorandum of charge has been served upon the delinquent employee so far as the initiation of departmental proceeding is concerned. While, in the case of judicial proceeding, the charge-sheet is to be submitted to the concerned Court, the judicial proceeding will be said to be at motion. 33. Further, Rule 139 confers power upon the State Government to revise the order passed by the Pension Sanctioning Authority or any authority sub-ordinate to the State. Thus, it is evident that the provision of Rule 139(c) can be invoked in a case where the service has not found to be thoroughly satisfactory of one or the other employee, who is to get pension or in a case where there is finding of grave misconduct. 34. Adverting to the factual aspects of the present case, the admitted fact is that no departmental proceeding has been initiated when the writ petitioner was in service, rather, only one show cause notice was issued for the purpose of conducting preliminary enquiry. 35. The writ petitioner has superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2022. After superannuation, show cause notice was issued on 15.03.2022 asking him as to why 10 per cent pension for two years be not withheld, which is 15 days after the date of retirement. 36. It is, thus, evident that no departmental proceeding was pending while the writ petitioner was in service. After superannuation, show cause notice was issued on 15.03.2022 asking him as to why 10 per cent pension for two years be not withheld, which is 15 days after the date of retirement. 36. It is, thus, evident that no departmental proceeding was pending while the writ petitioner was in service. Hence, there is no question of deemed conversion of the departmental proceeding to that of the proceeding said to be initiated under Rule 43(b) in view of the ratio laid down by the Patna High Court in the case of Shambhu Saran vs. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 1 PLJR 665 . 37. It is further evident that there is no finding of misconduct against the writ petitioner in absence of any finding recorded by the inquiry officer since no inquiry has ever been initiated while the writ petitioner was in service. 38. The alleged occurrence is of 10.12.2012 and as such, in absence of any departmental proceeding said to be pending during the period of service of the writ petitioner, the same cannot be said to be converted under the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. Further, the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules can also be initiated if the occurrence is within the period of four years from the date of occurrence and the institution of the proceeding. 39. But that is also not the fact herein, since, the allegation said to be committed by the writ petitioner on 10.12.2012, while the memorandum was issued after lapse of more than 9 years, hence, it is not a case where the proceeding under Rule 43(b) can be initiated in view of the rider of explanation (i) to the effect that proceeding is to be initiated under Rule 43(b) within the period of four years from the date of occurrence till the date of institution. 40. The case of the State is that the provision of Rule 139 was invoked and under the aforesaid provision, the impugned order has been passed. 41. The question which requires consideration that when the admitted case of the State is that only one irregularity said to be committed, can it be said to be the service cannot be found to be thoroughly satisfactory and further, it is not a case where there is finding of grave misconduct. 42. 41. The question which requires consideration that when the admitted case of the State is that only one irregularity said to be committed, can it be said to be the service cannot be found to be thoroughly satisfactory and further, it is not a case where there is finding of grave misconduct. 42. As has been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petitioner-appellant was granted promotion on three higher posts, hence, how the State can say, the service of the writ petitioner has not found to be thoroughly satisfactory. 43. The further question is that only on the one instance, the service of the writ petitioner be said to be thoroughly not satisfactory warranting the situation to invoke the jurisdiction conferred under Rule 139 of the Pension Rules. 44. It is settled connotation of law that the entire service record of the government servant is to be examined and authority should form the opinion on the basis of the entire service record and not only on the basis of one or another instances. 45. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 424 while dealing the issue of compulsory retirement has observed as under: “9. ---- The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the backdrop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the Government should form the opinion that the government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire service record more particular the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a government officer. ------” 10. Keeping these principles in mind and on considering the facts extracted hereinbefore we find that the exercise of power by the Government falls in the category of arbitrary exercise of power or failure to take the total record of service into consideration objectively. It has taken only the solitary adverse report for the year 1987-88 as a foundation to compulsorily retire the appellant from service. The Review Committee as well considered only that report, neither earlier reports nor subsequent reports were considered. It has taken only the solitary adverse report for the year 1987-88 as a foundation to compulsorily retire the appellant from service. The Review Committee as well considered only that report, neither earlier reports nor subsequent reports were considered. It is seen that admittedly the appellant was promoted as a Reader after the adverse report and the adverse comments were communicated to him and in a mechanical way they rejected the report (sic representation) to expunge the adverse remarks, even without going into the contention of the appellant that the then Principal was actuated with mala fides by submitting wrongly or falsely in confidential reports which appear to have some foundation or suspicion for such a contention. Consistent record earlier and later periods would establish that the appellant has meritorious record of service as a teacher and that his devotion to the service is good and fair and that he maintains discipline, good relations with the students and imparts teaching to the students fairly with good knowledge as a teacher. Therefore, in that background the exercise of the power is illegal. 46. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Hari Kishan Verma, (2015) 13 SCC 156 has reiterated the same view under paragraph 15of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under:- “15. The aforesaid dictum has been approved and followed in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel [ (2001) 3 SCC 314 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 576] , wherein emphasis has been laid on the factum that the entire service record of the government servant is to be examined. Same principle has also been followed in another three-Judge Bench decision in Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand [ (2010) 10 SCC 693 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 550] . ----” 16. In view of the aforesaid statement of law, there can be no iota of doubt that the entire record can be scrutinised by the employer to adjudge the justification of continuance of the employee after reaching a particular age as contemplated in the Regulations. This being the position of law, we have no hesitation in holding that the submission of Ms Rekha Palli is sans substance. 47. This being the position of law, we have no hesitation in holding that the submission of Ms Rekha Palli is sans substance. 47. All the aforesaid judgments are with respect to the compulsory retirement but the interpretation of the word entire service record is to be seen while applying the weeding out principle and, in that context, the meaning of ‘thoroughly satisfactory’ should have been construed. 48. It is, thus, safely inferred from the aforesaid judgments that the word ‘thoroughly satisfactory’ means that the service record of one or the other employee of his entire service period be considered and not only on one instance of commission of irregularity. 49. Herein, it is admitted case of the State that the writ petitioner was involved in the commission of irregularity for only one instance, hence, according to our considered view, cannot come under the fold of the service said to be not thoroughly satisfactory. 50. This Court, after having discussed the aforesaid factual aspect and legal position as referred above as also adverting to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge has found that the learned Single Judge without examining the provision of Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and considering the single instance of commission of irregularity, the service of the writ petitioner has been considered to be unsatisfactory service, but while, giving finding to that effect, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the very stipulation made under the provision of Rule 139 (c). 51. The service said to be not ‘thoroughly satisfactory’ as per the interpretation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments as referred above is only to be construed for the purpose of applicability of the provision of Rule 139(c), while, according to the considered view of this Court, the ‘unsatisfactory service’ since is not the word stipulated under the provision of Rule 139(c), hence, the same is not fit to be acceptable by inserting the word, which is not available in the statute, it is due to the reason that the statute is to be read out strictly as it is and there cannot be any deviation or insertion in the statute. 52. 52. The further settled position of law is that where the statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any way, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Ors AIR (1964) SC 358, Babu Verghese and Ors. vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 422 , Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors, (2002) 1 SCC 633 , State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ambay Cements & Anr., (2005) 1 SCC 368 and Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. Regional Direction ESIC Hyderabad & Ors. (in Civil Appeal No.5138-40/2007), (2015) 7 SCC 690 . 53. This Court, therefore, considering the aforesaid reason, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with. 54. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.5009 of 2022 is hereby, quashed and set aside. 55. In the result, the instant appeal is allowed. 56. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 09.09.2022, by which, the punishment has been inflicted with penalty of reduction of 10 per cent pension for two years against the appellant has also been quashed and set aside. 57. In consequence thereof, the amount of arrears with respect to withholding of 10 per cent pension for two years, be released in favour of the writ petitioner-appellant. 58. In consequent to disposal of the instant appeal, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.