“ 12. This Court does not find force in the said submission of the learned Additional Advocate-General. In my opinion, such notice (Annexure 8) and the action taken in pursuance thereof are wholly misconceived and incompetent, especially when the alleged misconduct was even beyond the scope of Rule 43(b) as it relates to the period beyond four years before the retirement of the petitioner. According to the apex Court, in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Md. Idris Ansarl (supra), if in such proceeding a person was found guilty of misconduct, he could have been properly proceeded against under Rule 139 (a) and (b). The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate that the notice (Annexure 8) invoking power under Rule 139(b) was issued solely on the basis of past misconduct during the period 1979-80 to 1990-91, which was the subject-Tiatter of the departmental proceeding initiated against him but not finalised before his retirement and not that it is based on the ground that the service record of the petitioner is not thoroughly satisfactory. In the said circumstances, the apex Court on a conjoint reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 (a) of the Rules held that there is no escape from the conclusion that as the alleged misconduct was committed by the respondent in the said case prior to four years from the date on which show cause notice dated 27-9-1993 was issued, the State had no power to invoke Rule 139 (a) and (b) against the
