Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 02.03.2010 has been passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the statement made in paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition, to which a reply has been given by the respondents in paragraph no. 14 of the counter-affidavit. Paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition and paragraph no. 14 of the counter-affidavit are extracted below: Paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition- "That it is submitted that the order has been passed without any show-cause notice and /or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner." Paragraph No. 14 of the counter-affidavit. "That with regard to the statements made in Para 11 of the writ petition, it is stated that according to Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. The Provincial Government reserves to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the Provincial Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of a pension under this Rule shall be final and conclusive. Further, it is submitted that according to Rule 43(b), State Government reserve right of withholding or withdrawing a pension, and the right of ordering the recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the petitioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or negligence, during his service, provided that judicial proceedings, if not justified while Government servant was on duty shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) i.e. "shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before institution of such proceeding." It is further submitted that according to explanation of the aforesaid Rule, (a). "Departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the petitioner are issued to him or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date and (b). in case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made or a charge-sheet is submitted to a criminal court." That it is further submitted that as stated above, the above criminal cases have been instituted against the petitioner and others, after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against them after hearing the parties, charges have been framed against them and after due trial, the charges framed against the petitioner have been duly proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the petitioner and others have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. It is admitted that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the aforesaid conviction and sentence before this Hon'ble Court, which is still pending. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Respondent No. 2 has rightly stopped the payment of pension of the petitioner till further orders and communicated by the Respondent No. 3."
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the petitioner stands convicted in a criminal case, in terms of Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the impugned order has been passed. The learned counsel further indicates that the impugned order dated 02.03.2010 is not the final order and only the pension of the petitioner has been withheld.;