JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition was initially preferred challenging the order dated 30.09.2013, passed by the Joint Secretary-1, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited contained in Annexure-6; whereby 10% pension of the petitioner was withheld as per Rule-139 (c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Appellate Authority decided the appeal of petitioner on 06.01.2016; whereby instead of 10%, 2% pension of the petitioner was withheld. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing I.A. No.765 of 2016 which was allowed on 13.07.2016. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner sought guidelines by Letter No.353 dated 05.10.2005 for lodging an F.I.R. with respect to disappearance of scraped copper wire. It is alleged against the petitioner that it was the duty of the petitioner to lodge the F.I.R. first and to inform the Higher Officers. It is further alleged that the petitioner instead of lodging the F.I.R., sought guideline to lodge the F.I.R. with respect to such event. 4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he retired on 31.12.2006 from the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer. His pension was sanctioned provisionally on 06.03.2007. When the pensionary benefits were not being released, he filed a writ petition on 18.11.2008 which was registered as W.P.(s) No.5530 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of on 28.07.2011 with a direction to release the admitted pensionary benefits. However, a show-cause notice was issued to this petitioner on 29.08.2013 directing him to show-cause as to why his pension to the extent of 10% be not withheld under Rule 139 (c) of Jharkhand Pension Rule for negligence and dereliction of his duty which he committed on 05.10.2005. This show-cause was replied by this petitioner on 11.09.2013. The impugned order of withholding of 10% pension was thereafter passed on 30.09.2013. The writ petition was filed on 31.03.2014 challenging the said order of withholding of pensionary benefits. During the pendency of the writ petition, the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was decided on 06.01.2016 and the pension to the extent of 2% was withheld. In this view of the matter the penalty was reduced from 10% to 2% withholding of pension. 5. Mr. During the pendency of the writ petition, the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was decided on 06.01.2016 and the pension to the extent of 2% was withheld. In this view of the matter the penalty was reduced from 10% to 2% withholding of pension. 5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the orders impugned are neither sustainable in law; nor on facts. He refers Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule to submit that the respondents have no power and authority to withhold the pensionary benefits after four years from the date of event, as the petitioner was a retired employee. He further submits that admittedly; the date of event is 05.10.2005, which is very much reflected in the show cause notice dated 29.08.2013 itself. The petitioner retired on 31.12.2006 and in this view of the matter the petitioner could have been proceeded at best by framing a charge till 05.10.2009 i.e., four years from the date of event; however, the show cause notice itself was issued on 29.08.2013 and hence; the same is time barred. Mr. Tandon further refers Rule 139 (c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule which prescribes that the State Government has power to revise pension, if the State is satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner while in service. He further draws the attention of this Court and submits that Rule 139 (c) further prescribes that such power cannot be exercised after the expiry of 3 years from the date of orders sanctioning the pension was first passed. He contended that admittedly; the pension was first passed/sanctioned on 06.03.2007 but, the order impugned was passed on 30.09.2013 i.e. much beyond three years. 6. Ld. Counsel further argues that Rule 139 (c) cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read with Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule. Reliance in this context has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Bihar & Others Vs. Md. Idris Ansari, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56. It has to be read with Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule. Reliance in this context has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Bihar & Others Vs. Md. Idris Ansari, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56. It has been contended that issue in question is no more res integra and the same has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which has been followed by this court also in one or the other judgments. 7. Mr. O.P. Tiwary, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, defends the orders passed by the Authorities withholding the pension of the petitioner. He submits that the 10% pension of the petitioner was ordered to be deducted permanently. This, however, was reconsidered by the higher authority and the same was restricted to 2% only. It is contended that petitioner has been paid Rs.859683.00 against Gratuity vide Cheque No.028082 dated 03.07.2012. G.P.F. amount to the tune of Rs.1724254.00 was also paid by Cheque No.011180 dated 18.01.2007. It is argued by the Respondents that no interference is required by this Court as the Authority itself thought it proper to reduce the quantum of penalty. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record; it appears that admittedly; the Petitioner stood retired on 31.12.2006 and, therefore, the proceeding against him was barred for an event/misconduct which took place beyond four years from the date the show cause notice was issued on 30.09.2013. In this context reference may be made to the proviso to Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule. It stipulates that the departmental proceeding can be initiated for a misconduct against a retired employee but, such departmental proceeding if not instituted while the government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, the same shall not be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. This provision further stipulates that such proceeding can be instituted only with the sanction of the State Government. Not only this, it further stipulates that the final order in such proceeding shall be passed only after consultation of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Public Service Commission. This provision further stipulates that such proceeding can be instituted only with the sanction of the State Government. Not only this, it further stipulates that the final order in such proceeding shall be passed only after consultation of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Public Service Commission. Therefore, if the event took place on 05.10.2005; the Respondents could have proceeded against the Petitioner on or before 05.10.2009 and not thereafter, as has been done in this case. 9. Admittedly, this show cause notice was issued to the petitioner only on 29.08.2013, which is placed at Annexure-4 of the writ petition. The explanation under Rule 43 (b) further stipulates that departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges are framed against the pensioner. In this case, I do not find that any charge memo was ever issued against the petitioner. Instead, only a show cause notice was issued and penalty order was imposed. This is absolutely in teeth of the provisions enshrined in Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule. 10. It further transpires that the pension has been withheld in garb of Rule139 (c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule. Rule 139 (c) cannot be read in isolation. If the misconduct is alleged against the Petitioner, as is the case of the Respondents, the procedure under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule has to be adhered to. Admittedly, this has not been done in the present case. Moreover, the pension was first sanctioned on 06.03.2007 and, therefore, the authority could have revised the same on or before 06.03.2010 and not thereafter. The pension has been reduced by way of order on 30.09.2013. Therefore, this is also beyond three years from the date of sanction of pension. This is not permissible at all, in the facts of the present case. 11. This court further finds force in the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the issue in question is no more res integra and the same has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Idris Ansari (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of Md. Idris Ansari (supra) that Rule 139 (c) cannot be read in isolation. Idris Ansari (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of Md. Idris Ansari (supra) that Rule 139 (c) cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read with Rule 43 (b) of the JHARKHAND PENSION RULES and a retired employee could not have been proceeded after four years from the date of event. The case in hand is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Idris Ansari (supra). For brevity, paragraph-10 is quoted hereinbelow: “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). In such proceedings, if he was found guilty of misconduct he could have been properly proceeded against under Rule 139(a) and (b). 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.” 12. In the light of what has been held above, the impugned orders dated 30.09.2013 and 06.01.2016 (Annexures-6 & 11 respectively) deserve to be, and, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The Respondents are directed to refund the amount withheld, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to cost.