1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order dated 17.11.1998, passed by the concerned Officer of the Water Resources Development ordering for continuance of the proceeding pending under Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (for short the Civil Services Rules) under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (for short the Pension Rules) and the final order passed in the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules dated 1.2.2003, whereby an order has been passed for withholding of 20% of his pension for one year.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was the Executive Engineer of the Water Resources Department and there was an allegation against him that the town hall, which was constructed, fell down because of use of substandard materials. The petitioner, admittedly, superannuated from service on 31.8.1998. Before he superannuated, a proceeding for misconduct was initiated against him, which was under Rule 55A of the Civil Service Rules where it is prescribed that only after giving an opportunity of making representation, an order has to be passed. That proceeding after superannuation of the petitioner was converted under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules by order dated 17.11.1998 (Annexure 7) and, thereafter, a final order dated 1.2.2003 (Annexure 11) was passed under section 43(b) of the Pension Rules.

3. The matter was placed before a learned Single Judge and after noticing the conflict between the two Division Bench judgments, he referred the matter to a Division Bench and that is how this case has been placed before us.

4. According to the learned Single Judge, there are conflict between the two judgments, namely, one The State of Bihar vs. Serajuddin Ahmad, reported in 2000(3) PLJR 150 and the other The State of Bihar vs. Bipin Bihari Prasad, reported in 2000(4) PLJR 459.

5. We have gone through the judgment of Serajuddin Ahmad (supra), where at no point of time the charges were framed in the proceeding and this Court took a view that the departmental proceeding cannot be treated as instituted while the Government servant was in service. That observation was made after taking into consideration the factual aspect of that case.

6. The question for consideration is as to whether a proceeding instituted under section 55A of the Civil Service Rules is treated to be a proceeding instituted before superannuation of the Government servant so that the same may be converted into a proceeding under section 43(b) of the Pension Rules.

7. Rule 55 of the Civil Services Rules deals with the procedure to be followed in a departmental proceeding in case of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction, whereas, Rule 55A thereof deals with the minor punishment, censure, withholding of salary etc. Though Rule 55A does not speak of the framing of charges, but now it has been held by this Hon ble Court that even in a proceeding under Rule 55A the charges are to be framed and then person is to be asked to file a representation only and no full-fledged or detailed enquiry as in the case of major punishment is needed but that does not mean that the proceeding under Rule 55A is not a departmental enquiry at all in the eye of law and once the nature of the allegations in the form of charge is served on the delinquent employee, the enquiry will be treated as instituted for the purpose of Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules and this is the view taken by other Division Bench in the case of Bipin Bihari Prasad (supra).

8. In that view of the matter, we fully agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Bipin Bihari Prasad (supra) and as a matter of fact there is no apparent conflict between the said two decisions. Earlier decision in the case of Serajuddin Ahmad (supra) was rendered on factual aspect of the matter and therein no law was laid down contrary to the law laid d