Letters Patent Appeal No.1534 OF 1999 Appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.9.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No.11616 of 1998 by a bench of this Court. ____________ THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS----(Appellants) Versus BHOLAN CHOUDHARY & ANR-----(Respondents) For appellants: Mr.J.P.Karn,AAG-IX For the Respondents: Mr.R.N.Mukhopadhaya, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAINANDAN SINGH Shiva Kirti Singh & Jainandan Singh, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar and its officials against the judgment and order dated 10.9.1999 passed by a single bench in exercise of writ jurisdiction whereby order of punishment dated 10.10.1998 against the writ petitioner withholding 100 per cent pension for one year under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was quashed. 3. It is not in dispute that the writ court has proceeded to grant relief to the writ petitioner on the basis of an understanding of law 2 relating to proceeding against retired employee which existed prior to full bench judgment of this court in the case of Shambhu Sharan V. State of Bihar reported in 2000(1)PLJR 665. The view taken by the writ court was that the proceeding continuing against a Government servant can continue against him even after retirement only if an order to continue such proceeding is passed prior to retirement of the concerned Government servant otherwise as an employer, State forfeits the right to continue the pending proceeding and must be bound by the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules if it chooses to initiate a fresh proceeding under the aforesaid provision under the Bihar Pension Rules. 4. However, the full bench judgment has now made the law clear that no specific order is required to continue a pending proceeding against a Government servant even after his retirement. If the requirement of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules warrant, the State Government may continue a proceeding against a Government servant even after his retirement and for that no specific or express order is required. 5. Thus, in view of law laid down by the 3 full bench the reasons given by the writ court for allowing the writ petition is clearly no longer valid and ordinarily this appeal should have been allowed. However, We were taken through the facts of the case and particularly the findings given by the disciplinary authority in the order of punishment to show that there is no finding that the writ petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct or even misconduct or that he has caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence. The order of punishment dated 10.10.1998 has been annexed as Annexure-R/3 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the writ petitioner in this appeal. That order was Annexure-1 to the writ petition which has been quashed by the writ court. A perusal of that order shows that on examining the show-cause submitted by the writ petitioner the following charge has been found proved against him. -: Those bills which had not been placed before the Liability Committee were again forwarded to the higher authorities for an amount of Rs.12 Lacs on receipt of a legal notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. When the Liability Committee had already made payment of Rs.56 Lacs then forwarding such bills without full scrutiny and as a result whereof Rs.8.47 Lacs had to be paid later on. 6. For the aforesaid charges the writ petitioner was awarded the punishment under Rule 4 43(b) whereby his entire pension for one year was stopped. 7. On behalf of the petitioner it has rightly been submitted that a bare perusal of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules makes it clear that withholding or withdrawing a pension or part of it has been made conditional upon a finding in departmental or judicial proceeding that the concerned officer has been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence during his service including rendered on reemployment after retirement. In the present case, We find that the proceeding was only under Rule-55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930 which permits award of minor punishment only after a show-cause notice. Hence the writ petitioner had not been communicated any formal charges nor any detailed enquiry had been conducted for charges that may be in the knowledge of the authorities. The nature of the charge can be gathered only from the findings which have been communicated to the writ petitioner through order of punishment. The charges found proved against the petitioner have already been noticed above. In our 5 view the findings in respect of charges do not meet with the requirement of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pensions Rules and in absence of any finding to the effect that writ petitioner was guilty of misconduct or grave misconduct or had caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence, he could not be inflicted with the punishment under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Hence, We find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the Respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) that the order of punishment is fit to be quashed on another ground as discussed above which was not gone into by the writ court which had allowed the writ petition on another ground that the proceeding itself could not have been continued against the writ petitioner after his retirement as no express order to that effect was passed by the State Government prior to superannuation of the writ petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, We find that although the view in respect of law relating to continuation of a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules expressed by the writ court stands over ruled by the judgment of the full court noticed above, 6 the writ petition is fit to be allowed on another ground discussed above. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed on that ground discussed above. As a result, this appeal fails. It is accordingly, dismissed. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Patna High Court The 13th of May,2008 NAFR/Perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (J.N. Singh,J.)