Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) Petitioner, by way of filing present writ petition, has challenged order dated 05.08.1998 by which his pension was ordered to be stopped. Competent authority has passed that order under Rule 6(1)(b) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, 'Rules of 1996') read with Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, on premise that since he, after his retirement, was convicted by court of Special Judge, Anti -Corruption Cases, Jaipur, vide judgment dated 13.09.1994 for offence under Ss. 120B, 420, 471 read with Sec. 465 of IPC and Sec. 5(1)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, therefore that rule would have no application to his case.
(2.) Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that incident on the basis of which Petitioner was involved in criminal case pertain to year 1978 of which first information report was lodged in 1981 and that even as per Rules 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules, for incident which is older than four years, powers under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules cannot be exercised. It is contended that Petitioner has filed appeal against conviction order and his sentence has been suspended by this Court. There is every likelihood of Petitioner being acquitted. His pension cannot be withheld. It is contended that Rule 6 of Rules of 1996 inter alia provides that maintenance of future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension. Conviction of Petitioner was made by judgment dated 13.09.1994 whereas retirement of Petitioner took place on 31.10.1991; thus said rule has wrongly been invoked in Petitioner's case because he already stood retired much prior to passing of conviction order and conduct on the basis of which Petitioner was convicted pertained to 1978.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents opposed writ petition and argued that words 'future good conduct', cannot be so narrowly construed to say that even if order of conviction has been passed subsequent to date of retirement, its effect would be realized on concerned government servant only when incident on the basis of which he was convicted pertains to subsequent to date of retirement. Learned Counsel argued that mere filing of appeal and suspension of sentence would not be a reason not to withhold pension because Rule 6 of Rules of 1996 specifically gives an authority to employer in that behalf. Learned Counsel for Respondents relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v/s. B. Dev : AIR 1998 SC 2709 wherein it was held that Government was entitled to withheld or withdraw pension or part thereof for any misconduct which might have been committed by pensioner during his service with government and on which basis he was convicted. Rule 6 of Rules of 1996 was therefore rightly invoked in Petitioner's case. Further argument of Respondents is that impugned order was passed after show -cause notice served upon Petitioner and to which he filed reply, which was duly considered.;