- (1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality of the impugned order dated 18.3.14 (Annex.4) passed by the respondent No.2 under Rule 6(1)(b) and 6(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'), withholding the pension of the petitioner on the ground of he having been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 477A read with Section 120B of IPC.
(2.) In the instant case it appears that the petitioner retired from the post of Junior Engineer, Panchayat Samiti, Thanagazi on 31.1.2010. His pension payment order dated 24.3.11 was issued by the respondent No.3, according to which the petitioner was being paid provisional pension under Rule 90 of the said Rules. It further appears that one criminal case being No. 1/99 was pending against the petitioner in the court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, No.1, Jaipur, in which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for the offences as stated hereinabove. According to the petitioner, he has filed the Criminal Appeal being No. 800/13 before the High Court and the High Court has been pleased to stay the sentence as per the order dated 21.11.13, while admitting the said appeal, however, the respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 18.3.14 has withheld the pension invoking Rule 6(1)(b) and 6(2) of the said Rules and therefore the present petition has been filed.
(3.) The court while issuing the notice to the respondents had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 18.3.14, vide the order dated 29.4.14. The said ex-parte ad-interim order was continued from time to time. It appears that the petitioner had also filed contempt proceedings for the non-compliance of the said ex-parte order, and hte respondents had filed the application under Article 226(3) seeking vacation of the said ex-parte order.;