(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) ON 1-2-1992 the appellant retired as Chief Engineer, Daltonganj, State of Bihar. On 5-3-1992 he was charged with defalcation along with other officers of the State Government against whom a criminal case was already pending.

(3) ON 22-2-1992 a show-cause notice was issued by the State Government to the appellant under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. It stated that a charge-sheet was enclosed to which the appellants explanation was required within 15 days. It also stated,

"THE State Government is satisfied that the charges levelled because of irregularities to the extent of several lakhs of rupees is a reasonable cause for deduction from the pension payable to you. The State Government proposes to deduct 50% (fifty per cent) of the approximate pension."

The charge-sheet which was enclosed alleged that while the appellant was functioning as Superintending Engineer at Daltonganj, an emergent indent for purchase of certain electrical material signed by the Executive Engineer had been countersigned by him. The indent did not mention any reason for the emergency. A physical verification after about one-and-a-half years of the purchase showed that the electrical material had not been utilised. It was clear from these facts that there was no emergent situation and false document had been prepared in connivance for the emergent indent. The charge-sheet concluded:

"THUS, under a deep conspiracy, you had misused your post for a wrong emergent situation for purchase and countersigned it to cause financial loss to the Government and thus, you have been found guilty of it."

On 30-1-1994 the appellant replied. He stated that the criminal proceedings against him were still pending so that these proceedings were unlawful and deduction from his pension was not permissible. Apart from this, the appellants liability had not been fixed or described in the charge-sheet.

(4) ON 27-5-1994 an order was passed which repeated at two places that the State Government had suffered "a loss of lakhs of rupees". It said that it had been found that the appellant had countersigned the emergent indent although there was no mention of the justification for it and he had thus connived in the preparation of the background for the purchase of the electrical material. For these reasons the appellant "has been found guilty and his pension is reduced by 50% under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. Accordingly, Shri Sinha is informed of the above punishment".

(5) THE appellant filed a writ petition impugning the aforesaid order before the High Court at Patna. The writ petition having been rejected, this appeal has been filed.

(6) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the provisions of Rules 139 and 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules, the relevant portions whereof read thus:

"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, or any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed."

"43. (a) Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pension. The Provincial Government reserve to themselves the right of withholdi