1. In this writ petition, petitioner is ag- grived by the order contained in letter no. 3294 dated 27th March, 1998 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure-8), whereby and whereunder the State Government in purported exercise of the power under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules has directed for deduction of 30% from the pension payable to him besides that he shal! not be entitled for any payment other than subsistence allowance paid to him during the period of suspension i.e. 21.8.1980 to 17.9.1982. However, the said period of suspension has been counted for the purpose of computation of pension.

2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner belongs to Bihar Administrative service and it is alleged that during his posting as Sub-divisional Officer, Saraikela, Singhbhum, which was then in the State of Bihar, he encouraged illegal trade in coal, worked against the Government instruction, suppressed facts and did not discharge his duty properly, for which he was placed under suspension vide order no. 11461 dated 21.8.1980. However, his suspension was revoked vide office order no. 10467 dated 17.9.1982, but departmental proceeding was continued against him. On 5.6.1990 the Departmental Commissioner for enquiry, Bihar, Patna was appointed as En- quiry Officer, who submitted his report vide letter no. 13/C.D.E. dated 21.1.1992. The petitioner, thereafter was given opportunity to defend against the said report, and the entire papers were sent to the Commercial Department of Government of Bihar, on consideration of which report was submitted by the said Department. However, in the meanwhile, petitioner superannuated from service on 31.12.1994 whereafter the impugned order has been passed in purported exercise of the power under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

3. According to the case of the petitioner the charges relate to the period 30th October, 1978 to Ist April, 1980. According to him the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report, contained in Annexure-5 only show that there has been certain procedural lapses on the part of the petitioner, but the substantial charges have been found not to be proved. In the whole enquiry report it has not been found that the petitioner has caused any pecuniary loss to the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus, submitted that according to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Md. Idris Ansari, reported in 1995(2) PLJR (S.C.) 51 (paras 8 & 9) a conjoint reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules projects that a retired Government servant can be proceeded against under Rufe 139 and his pension can be appropriately reduced if the sanctioning authority is satisfied that his service record was not thoroughly satisfactory, and even if the service record of the concerned Officer is found to be thoroughly satisfactory by the sanctioning authority and the State Government finds it to be not thoroughly satisfactory or that there is proof of grave misconduct during his service tenure, the State Government can exercise revisional power to reduce the pension, but the revision is also subject to the rider that it should be exercised within three years from the order sanctioning pension was first passed in his favour by the sanctioning authority and not beyond the said period. So far as the second type of case is concerned the proof of grave misconduct during his service tenure will have to be culled out by the revisional authority in the departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding which might have taken place during his service tenure or in the departmental proceedings which may be initiated even after retirement in such type of cases. According to the Apex Court, such departmental proceedings will have to be complied with the requirement of Rule 43(b). Consequently, a retired Government servant can be found guilty of grave misconduct during his serv