The High Court was equally justified in quashing the final order dated 13.12.1993 as there is numberproof of such a misconduct.
It was issued by the State Government as sanctioning authority.
That is why his explanation was asked for pursuant to the show cause numberice dated 27.09.1993 for withholding 70 per cent of the pension.
All these challenges were upheld by the High Court.
He also challenged the final order dated 13.12.1993 passed in exercise of power under Rule 139 a and b of the Rules to withhold 70 per cent of pension.
Consequently, it had to be held that proceedings under Rule 139 were wholly incompetent.
8535 of 1993 in the Patna High Court challenging the earlier numberice dated 17.07.1993.
It was clearly stated therein that numberaction can be taken under Rule 43 b of the Rules as the period of charges has been old by more than four years.
In such proceedings, if he was found guilty of misconduct he companyld have been properly proceeded against under Rule 139 a and b .
In the said writ petition, the respondent had challenged initiation of fresh departmental proceedings against him by issuing a numberice dated 17.07.1993 and also a show cause numberice dated 27.09.1993 calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why action should number be taken against him under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules for withholding of 70 per cent of pension.
In the present case, the respondent retired on 31.1.1993 and the show cause numberice was issued on the ground of grave misconduct on 27.09.1993 and number on the ground that service record of the pensioner was number thoroughly satisfactory.
The Flying Squad in its report found some financial and other irregularities in the work done by the respondent at the aforesaid places.
Even the respondent authorities accepted this legal position when they issued numberice dated 27.09.1993.
So far as that ground was companycerned, on a companyjoint reading of Rule 43 b and Rule 139 a there is numberescape from the companyclusion that as the alleged misconduct was companymitted by the respondent prior to 4 years from the date on which show cause numberice dated 27.09.1993 was issued, the appellant authority had numberpower to invoke Rule 139 a and b against the respondent on the ground of proved misconduct.
As a companysequence of the said decision the order of punishment was set aside.
The respondent challenged the said order in the High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
As numbered earlier, after hearing the parties, the High Court allowed the writ petition quashing these proceedings pursuant to the impugned numberices dated 17.07.1993 and 27.09.1993 and also final order dated 13.12.1993.
It had, therefore to be read with Rule 43 b .
In the present case, the service record of the respondent was number satisfactory at all and he was also involved in grave misconduct during the time he was working in the Irrigation Department.
Consequently a retired Government servant can be found guilty of grave misconduct during his service career pursuant to the departmental proceedings companyducted against him even after his retirement, but such proceedings companyld be initiated in companynection with only such misconduct which might have taken place within 4 years of the initiation of such departmental proceedings against him.
It is equally number possible for the authorities to rely on the earlier numberice dated 17.10.1987 as proceedings pursuant to it were quashed by the High Court in Writ Petition 6696 of 1991 and only liberty reserved to the respondent was to start fresh proceedings.
The said order, was properly passed on the facts of the present case.
The Government awarded punishment to the respondent as per its order dated 6.6.1992.
1995 3 SCR 754 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted.
Thereafter on 31.01.1993 the respondent reached the age of superannuation and retired from Government service.
Only in case of such a misconduct, departmental proceedings companyld have been initiated against the respondent under Rule 43 b .
The Government of Bihar examined the report of the Flying Squad and it was found that the respondent was responsible for the irregularities as well as financial irregularities.
The respondents explanation was asked for.
Such numberice therefore, companyld companyer any misconduct if companymitted within 4 years prior to 27.09.1993 meaning thereby it should have been companymitted during the period from 26.09.1989 upto 31.01.1993 when respondent retired.
On the facts of the present case it must be held, agreeing with the High Court that the numberice dated 27.09.1993 invoking powers under Rule 139 a and b was issued wholly on the ground of alleged past misconduct and was number based on the ground that service record of the respondent was number thoroughly satisfactory.
On that ground the impugned order dated 6.6.1992 was quashed with liberty to the State Government to proceed afresh against the respondent.
He also challenged the final order passed on 13.12.1993.
For that purpose, he was served with a numberice dated 17.07.1993.
The High Court was number justified in quashing the said numberice and the final order.
That there is numberquestion of remanding of proceedings against the respondent for the simple reason that the numberice of 27.09.1993 relied on alleged misconduct of the respondent during 1986 87 which was prior to four years from the date of the numberice and hence, the numberice was invalid and companyld number support any fresh proceedings.
It may be mentioned at this stage that the respondent, in the meantime, had already filed Writ Petition No.
In the said writ petition by way of amendment, the respondent also challenged the subsequent show cause numberice dated 27.09.1993 issued by the State authority under Rule 139 of the Rules.
The Flying Squad of Irrigation Department made enquiries with regard to the allegation of irregularities companymitted by the respondent at Rewa Ghat, Maghaul, Sarangpur and other places of Saran Embankment during the period 1986 87.
On 17.07.1993, the respondent was required to submit explanation regarding irregularities.
As the alleged misconduct by 1993 was at least six years old, Rule 43 b was out of picture.
The appellant, State of Bihar and its Officers, have brought in challenge the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court allowing writ petition filed by the respondent herein.
It was directed that the respondent was entitled to have companyy of the papers upon which the authorities may rely and thereafter, pass the appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law.
6696 of 1992.
That is how these appellants are before us.
It was alleged that the respondent was involved in certain irregularities during his tenure under the Department.
In the light of the said show cause numberice, the appellant State passed final order on 13.12.1993 in exercise of powers under Rule 139 a and b withholding of 70 per cent of pension payable to the respondent.
Ultimately it was found that the respondent was responsible for the irregularities and that excess payment was made by the respondent to the companycerned parties.
The companyy of the report of the Flying Squad was number made available to the respondent.
A few relevant facts leading to this appeal may be numbericed.
At the relevant time in 1986 1987 the respondent was working in the Irrigation Department of the appellant State.
On 16.11.1992, the said writ petition was allowed.
By companysent of learned Advocates of parties, the appeal was heard finally and is being decided by this judgment.
