Judgment P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Vijayshankar, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. The respondent No.2 was convicted in a criminal case for possessing assets beyond his known source of income. Since the order of conviction was passed after the retirement, the proceedings was initiated in terms of Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Pension) Rules. Thereafter, the departmental authority had passed an order forfeiting the entire pension. Such order was challenged before the Tribunal. 3. The only point raised before the Tribunal was to the effect that the copy of the opinion furnished by the UPSC had not been furnished to the applicant before the passing the order of punishment. For the aforesaid purpose the Tribunal had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B.Karunakar & Ors. ( 1993(4) SCC 727 ). 4. In the present case, the only material which was not furnished before the imposition of the punishment was the advisory opinion of the UPSC. In a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Union of India and another Vs. T.V.Patel ( 2007(4) SCC 785 ), it has been held that the non furnishing of the opinion of UPSC before the passing of the order of punishment would not be fatal and furnishing of such opinion along with the impugned order of punishment would be sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice. 5. In the present case, there is no dispute that the advisory opinion of the UPSC had been furnished along with the copy of the order of punishment. In such view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 6. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that there were other points to be raised before the Tribunal. But because the Tribunal had allowed the original application, only for this point the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 7. However, on a careful reading of the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the only contention was relating to the non-furnishing of the opinion of the UPSC. But because the Tribunal had allowed the original application, only for this point the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 7. However, on a careful reading of the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the only contention was relating to the non-furnishing of the opinion of the UPSC. Moreover, in the present case the punishment was imposed on account of the fact that the applicant before the Tribunal had been found guilty in a disproportionate assets case and therefore, we hardly see the possibility of any other point being raised in such a matter. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent then submitted that in fact an appeal against the order of conviction is now pending before the Appellate Court. It goes without saying that in case ultimately the present respondent No.2 succeeds in the criminal appeal and the order of conviction is set aside, obviously the basis of imposing the punishment of forfeiture of pension would vanish and at that stage the Department can be approached to pass any appropriate orders. The writ petition is allowed subject to the aforesaid observation. No costs.