JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:-

(i) For quashing the order dated 04.06.2012 issued under the signature of respondent no.3 vide memo no.967 whereby and where under the said respondent without issuing any charge-sheet and without conducting any proceeding has ordered for permanent deduction of 10% from the pension of the petitioner is absolute disregard to the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules.

(ii) For quashing of the letter no.894 dated 16.08.2012 issued under the signature of respondent no.6 whereby and where under the said respondent has revised the pension of the petitioner from Rs.10,990/- per months to Rs.9891/- w.e.f. 01.08.07 by deducting 10% of the pension as per office order no.967 dated 04.06.2012.

(iii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith release/pay balance 10% of the pension amount which has been illegally deducted/recovered from the pension of the petitioner.

3. The facts as disclosed in the instant writ application are that in the year 2006, vide memo no.904 dated 17.06.2006, the respondents issued a show cause to the petitioner seeking explanation for disappearance of the basic file of one Meghnath Mahto; alleging therein that the petitioner was custodian of the service book and personal file of Sri Mahto. On 01.07.2006, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the aforesaid show cause notice and said reply was further forwarded to the higher authority. In the meantime, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.07.2007 and the petitioner was paid his entire retrial benefits. However, the respondents vide Memo No.3137 dated 13.12.2007 sanctioned only 90% as provisional pension to the petitioner stating therein that due to non availability of certificate from BSEB with respect to charges/departmental proceeding/no dues certificates etc., only 90% of the pension has been sanctioned. However, on 04.06.2009 the respondent fixed final pension of the petitioner and issued Permanent Pension Order (PPO) sanctioning 100% pension to the petitioner and also sanctioned full gratuity amount. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner has received 10% of the pension and arrears thereof.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that all of a sudden; without serving any charge-sheet and without initiating any proceeding, the respondents decided and proposed to punish the petitioner for the alleged misconduct by deducting 10% from the pension of the petitioner and accordingly issued a show cause notice on 08.06.2011 to which the petitioner filed a detailed explanation vide its reply dated 02.07.2011. However an order of deduction of pension has been passed, which is impugned in the instant application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 04.06.2012 purported to be issued under Rule 139(C) has been passed in contravention to the provision laid under Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules). He further submits that the letter no.894 dated 16.08.2012 issued in continuance to the impugned order dated 04.06.2012 is equally bad in law; as such, on the sole ground that it has been passed beyond a period of three years from the date of order of sanctioning of pension was first passed. As such, the impugned order as contained in memo no.967 dated 04.06.2012 and also letter no.894 dated 16.08.2012 may be quashed.

6. Mr. O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-Board (now JUVNL) submits that no irregularity has been committed by the respondent authority. He further submits that this period of three years has been counted from the date when 100% of pension was sanctioned to the petitioner i.e. on 04.06.2009. He further submits that before issuance of the impugned order proper show cause notice was issued and after