1. Heard Counsel for the parties. The instant writ application was filed on 24.8.1993 challenging the initiation of a departmental proceeding against the petitioners after his superannuation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner over superannuated from service with effect from 31st January, 1993. After his superannuation ninety percent of the pension amount was provisionally released in his favour, but no payment was made to him by way of gratity. The departmental proceeding was initiated on 17th July, 1993 and that was challenged in the instant writ application. During the pendency of the writ position a show cause (Annexure-9) was issued on 27.9.1993 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action be net taken against him under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules withholding seventy present of his pension. The same was challenged by amending the writ application. Thereafter on order dated 13.12.1993 (Annexure-11) was passed in exercise of power under Rules withholding seventy percent of the pension payable to the petitioner. The aforesaid order (Annexure-11) has also been challenged by an amendment of the writ petition.

2. At the hearing of the writ petition the order initiating the departmental proceeding has not been supported, obviously because after the petitioner had superannuated from service, the Government lost disciplinary control over the petitioner and there was no question of proceeding against him in the departmental proceeding. However, counsel for the State submits that the show cause (Annexure 9) and the final order passed on 13.12.1993 (Annexure-11) under Rule 139 of Bihar Pension Rule are fully justified.

3. At this stage we may notice that in the show cause dated 27.9.1993 (Annexure 9) it is virtually conceded by the State that the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules could not be initiated against the petitioner, since the incident giving rise to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner took place more than four years before the institution of the proceeding. However the Government exercised its power under Rule 139(a) and (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Rule 43(a) of the Rules provides that future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pensions and the Government has the right of withholding or with drawing a pension or any part of it for reasons mentioned in the Rule. Rules 43(b) of the Rules further provides that a pension or any part of it may be withheld permanently or for a specified period if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary less to the Government by misconduct or negligence during his service, including service rendered on re-employments after retirement. The proviso, however, places restriction on exercise of such power and provides that if a departmental proceeding had not been initiated before the retirement of the Government servant or during re-employment, it shall not be instituted expect with the previous sanction of the State Government and it can be instituted only in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding.

4. In the instant case it appears that in connection with some work executed in the year 1986-87 the Government had found some deficiencies. An order was passed to recover a sum of Rs.93,520.70 paise from the petitioner. The same was challenged by petitioner before this court in CWJC No. 6696 of 1992 and the writ application was allowed by an order 16th November, 1992 holding the order to be bad, as it was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Opportunity, however, was given to the State to initiate a fresh proceeding, if so advised, in accordance with law. It is not disputed that thereafter no further action was taken till the petitioners superannuated from service on 31st January, 1993. A departmental proceeding was ultimately sought to be instituted on 17.7.19