ORDER : By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: - (i) For quashing of order dated 21.10.2014 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure 2), whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been found that in all cases he has not performed his liability with due diligence and further it has been found that the petitioner cannot be considered out of charges. (ii) For quashing of memo No.869 dated 05.10.2015 passed by respondent No.4 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa (Annexure 5) whereby and whereunder the respondent No.4 has been pleased to affirm the order of respondent No.3 and petitioner has been punished for deduction of 10% of pension from his whole pension period in accordance with Pension Rule 139(B). (iii) For quashing of order Memo No.562 dated 13.08.2018 passed by respondent No.5, i.e., Commissioner, Palamau Division (Annexure 6), whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. From the writ petition, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on 31.03.1981 as Revenue Karamchari in Bhandaria Circle. He was transferred on 07.08.1986 to Garhwa Circle. He superannuated on 31.08.2012 while working as Revenue Karamchari, Meral Circle, Garhwa. Petitioner was served with show cause vide Memo No.293 dated 01.10.2012 alleging that the petitioner had prepared parwana of settlement instead of real raiyat of the village Meral and another show cause was served to the petitioner vide Memo No.141 dated 02.07.2013 alleging that from March 2009 to October 2012, the Quarter Allowance has been drawn by the petitioner, however, the rent of the Quarter has not been paid, thus, the petitioner had detained the quarter at least for 8 months unauthorisedly after his superannuation. A Departmental Proceeding Case No.03/13-14 was started against the petitioner with the allegation that he has not performed his duty with due diligence. Vide Memo No.126 dated 14.02.2015, alleging that the charges against the petitioner has been proved, he was asked as to why not 10% of his pension may be deducted in accordance with Rule 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rules. On 15.04.2015, petitioner had submitted his reply. Vide Memo No.869 dated 05.10.2015, respondent No.4 affirmed the charges leveled against the petitioner and has imposed a punishment for deduction of 10% of pension from his pension for the whole period in accordance with Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. On 15.04.2015, petitioner had submitted his reply. Vide Memo No.869 dated 05.10.2015, respondent No.4 affirmed the charges leveled against the petitioner and has imposed a punishment for deduction of 10% of pension from his pension for the whole period in accordance with Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. The petitioner had preferred a departmental appeal, which was also rejected by the respondent No.5 by order dated 13.08.2018. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had given information to the respondents vide letter dated 05.03.2009 to the effect that he had left the allotted government quarter. 3. The respondents through counter affidavit have stated that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and as such order under Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule has been passed deducting 10% of pension of the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. It has been contended by the respondents that memo No.869/Stha. dated 05.10.2015 could not be transmitted to the Office of Accountant General, Jharkhand Ranchi till 08.10.2015, meanwhile the Accountant General determined the entire pension amount of the petitioner without deducting 10% as per order of the respondent No.4. In the light of the above order, the Circle Officer, Meral, i.e., the respondent No.2 issued No Objection Certificate to the District Treasury Officer, Garhwa for release of 90% pension in favour of the petitioner through letter No.244 dated 04.06.2020. The Treasury Officer, Garhwa through letter No. 362/meral dated 10.06.2021 communicated that a request letter has already been sent to the Accountant General, Jharkhand. The respondents have also brought on record that the petitioner has received leave encashment, provisional gratuity, group insurance payment, GPF, ACP/MACP Dues from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2012. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been punished by deduction of 10% of pension for his whole pension period against the established law. Learned counsel submitted that there was nothing on record against the petitioner so as to attract deduction of 10% of pension. The act of the respondents in deducting his pension is illegal and unsustainable. He submits that his pension was fixed and the Accountant General has already issued order. In that scenario jurisdiction under Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules could not have been invoked. 5. The act of the respondents in deducting his pension is illegal and unsustainable. He submits that his pension was fixed and the Accountant General has already issued order. In that scenario jurisdiction under Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules could not have been invoked. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and as such order under Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule was passed deducting 10% of pension of the petitioner. 6. To appreciate the arguments and contentions of the respective parties, I have gone through the records. As per the record, I find that the petitioner superannuated on 31.08.2012. The order under Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules was passed on 05.10.2015. It is an admitted case of both the parties that on 11.08.2015, i.e. prior to the order, 100% pension was fixed by the Circle Officer in terms of Jharkhand Pension Rules. An authority order was also issued on 08.10.2015. In the meantime, punishment order was passed on 05.10.2015. The impugned order of punishment was issued in terms of Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Thus, the question, which falls for consideration is whether on the facts of this case, when the pension was already fixed, any order could have been passed by invoking Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules on 05.10.2015 or not. 7. The entire issue involved revolves around interpretation of Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules reads as under: - 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. 8. From the provision of law, it is clear that Rule 139(a) provides that an employee is not entitled for full pension as a matter of course or unless the service has been really approved. The reduction of pension is authorized by virtue of Rules 139(b) and 139(c). Rule 139 (b) provides that if service of an employee is not thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. As per the aforesaid provision, the jurisdiction lies with the authority sanctioning the pension to make any such reduction. The rate of reduction is to be fixed by the said authority, who is fixing the pension as per his discretion. Such reduction can only be made if the service is not thoroughly satisfactory. Thus, as per the aforesaid provision, the power is only vested with the authority who is sanctioning the pension and none else. The power can be exercised at the time of fixing the pension, i.e., at the initial stage. 9. Rule 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules gives power to the State Government to revise an order relating to pension of an employee, which is passed by the subordinate authorities under their control. This gives exclusive power to the State Government to revise the order of pension, which has been passed by any authority subordinate to the State Government. This is a revisional power, to be exercised by the State Government. This power can be invoked when the State Government feels that “sanctioning authority”, who has already sanctioned the pension in terms of Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, has wrongly fixed the pension. This is a revisional power, to be exercised by the State Government. This power can be invoked when the State Government feels that “sanctioning authority”, who has already sanctioned the pension in terms of Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, has wrongly fixed the pension. This revisional power can be exercised by the State Government if the State Government is satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or there is proof of grave misconduct committed by him while he was in service. Thus, as per the aforesaid provision, the State Government may revise the order of the sanctioning authority in respect of fixation of pension, if the service is not proper or if the employee has committed a misconduct, but it cannot be without following the principles of natural justice. 10. Further, there is another restriction, i.e., revisional power cannot be exercised after expiry of three years from the date of order of sanctioning of the pension. This suggests that the Revisional Authority, within 3 years of the order sanctioning the pension can revise the same, but not beyond that. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions, this case has to be adjudicated. In this case, admittedly, on 11.08.2015, pension of the petitioner was fixed by the Circle Officer. An authority was issued on 08.10.2015. Pension, which was sanctioned was 100%. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the final amount of pension of the petitioner was determined with effect from 01.11.2012 and the pension payment notification has been brought on record as Annexure ‘A’, which is dated 08.10.2015. They also stated that the order of deduction of 10% of pension amount in terms of Rule 139(b) could not be communicated to the Accountant General, thus, the Accountant General determined the pension without deducting 10%. This admission on the part of the respondent State clearly suggests that the full pension of the petitioner was earlier approved and sanctioned by the authority, i.e., prior to the order by which 10% pension was sought to be deducted. Once the full pension of the petitioner was sanctioned by the authority, the respondents could not have invoked Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules at a later stage. The sanctioning authority did not have the jurisdiction to revise the pension in terms of Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, once it was already sanctioned. Once the full pension of the petitioner was sanctioned by the authority, the respondents could not have invoked Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules at a later stage. The sanctioning authority did not have the jurisdiction to revise the pension in terms of Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, once it was already sanctioned. Since the pension intimation memo was already issued without the deduction, it is clear that 100% pension was sanctioned earlier. Respondents, in this situation, could have only invoked provision of Rule 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules to revise the full pension, which was already ordered by the sanctioning authority. This revisional power is only with the State Government and is with no other authority nor even the Deputy Commissioner or the Sanctioning Authority. The Sanctioning Authority does not have the power to revise his order by which pension was sanctioned. In this case, when the full pension was sanctioned, it was only the State Government, who could have revised the order passed by the Subordinate Authority. The Deputy Commissioner, in this case, invoked jurisdiction under Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and reduced the pension by 10%. This reduction, though is as per the order in terms of Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, but, in fact, the same is by way of a revision. The revisional power is under Rule 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and not under Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, that too is with the State Government. I have arrived at this conclusion because as noted earlier, full pension was already fixed on 11.08.2015 and on that basis pension intimation memo was also issued. As admitted, the said order was issued on 11.08.2015, which is prior to passing of the impugned order. 12. In the aforesaid scenario, the mater could have only been placed before the State Government, which has the statutory power to revise the pension. Without doing so, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order claiming it to be an order under Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, which, in law, could not be invoked. The Deputy Commissioner also is not competent to pass an order in terms of Rule 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules as the Deputy Commissioner is not the State Government. It is only the State Government, which has the power to revise the order. The Deputy Commissioner also is not competent to pass an order in terms of Rule 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules as the Deputy Commissioner is not the State Government. It is only the State Government, which has the power to revise the order. A conjoint proper reading of Rule 139(b) and Rule 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules would suggest that the initial order of fixing pension, be it at reduced rate or at full rate, has to be passed by the Sanctioning Authority, which can be revised by the State Government. In this case, it is admitted that the initial order was passed on 11.08.2015 fixing 100% pension in favour of the petitioner, that is why the Accountant General has also issued the necessary order as per Annexure ‘A’ to the Counter Affidavit, fixing 100% pension. Once that has been done, the stage of Rule 139(b) is already crossed. The only remedy available was by way of revision in terms of Rule 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. The Deputy Commissioner cannot pass a fresh order in terms of Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules at this stage. In this situation, where he has no jurisdiction to pass any order in terms of Rule 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, revising the earlier order fixing the pension lies with the State Government. In this case, admittedly, the State Government has not passed any order and the order in terms of Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules was passed after the pension of the petitioner was already fixed. Thus, the procedure adopted by the respondents is absolutely erroneous and against the provisions of Rule 139(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and also against Rule 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. 13. In view of what has held above, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. The impugned orders issued by the respondents to the contrary are hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to calculate and pay the full pension to the petitioner. 14. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.