JUDGMENT S.N. PRASAD, J. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 11.9.2007 passed by the General Manager(HR&A), Central Electricity Supply of Orissa, Bhubaneswar by which pension and gratuity both in full has been withheld permanently and the period of his suspension has been treated as such, has approached this Court. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner while working as Junior Engineer(Electrical) under the opposite party-authority was involved in a criminal case bearing Cuttack Vigilance P.S.Case No.63 of 1997 which led to initiation of trial bearing T.R.Case No.47 of 1998 registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The petitioner has departmentally been preceded on the ground of demand of illegal gratification which has been alleged against him in the F.I.R. The authorities has kept in abeyance the departmental proceeding awaiting outcome of the judicial proceeding pending before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. 4. The petitioner has been convicted by the criminal court of jurisdiction and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5000/-. 5. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before this Court, in which order of sentence has been kept in abeyance and thereafter the petitioner was permitted to avail the privilege of suspension of order of sentence. 6. The authorities thereafter passed an order dated 11.9.2007 by which pension and gratuity both in full has been withheld permanently. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 11.9.2007 has preferred this writ petition. 7. Submission has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is not sustainable on two grounds: (i) The petitioner although has been convicted in a criminal case by the trial court, against which he has preferred an appeal which is pending for final hearing, as such pendency of appeal shall be treated as continuation of the original proceeding of the trial court, hence he is entitled to get provisional pension in view of provision as contained in Rule 66 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1992’). (ii) The impugned order is not sustainable because in view of the provision as contained in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1992, the Orissa Public Service Commission is to be consulted but it has not been consulted. 8. (ii) The impugned order is not sustainable because in view of the provision as contained in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1992, the Orissa Public Service Commission is to be consulted but it has not been consulted. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the appeal is pending before the higher court and as such pendency of the appeal in higher court will be deemed to be finding of the original proceeding and in that pretext the petitioner ought to have been given privilege as contained in Rule-66 of the Rules, 1992. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the petitioner since been involved in a case like the nature of corruption and he has been involved in offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, trial court has convicted him and directed to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.5000/-, hence the authorities have taken right step by keeping the departmental proceeding in abeyance during pendency of the judicial proceeding, the petitioner may not be prejudiced in the departmental proceeding and he may not disclose his defence in the departmental proceeding which he ought to have disclosed in the judicial proceeding, so that he may not be prejudiced in the trial. 10. Submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the moment the petitioner has been convicted in the criminal case, authority in view of the provision as contained in Rule-7 of the Rules, 1992 has passed order of withholding pension. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 12. To adjudicate the issue it is necessary to discuss Rules of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, i.e. Rules 6, 7 and 66 of the said Rules which is being quoted below: Rule-6–Pension subject to future good conduct – (1) Future good conduct shall be an implied of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules. 12. To adjudicate the issue it is necessary to discuss Rules of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, i.e. Rules 6, 7 and 66 of the said Rules which is being quoted below: Rule-6–Pension subject to future good conduct – (1) Future good conduct shall be an implied of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules. (2) The pension sanctioning authority may by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime of is found guilty or grave misconduct: Provided that no such order shall be passed by an authority subordinate to the authority competent to make an appointment to the post held by the pensioner immediately before his retirement from service: Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of minimum limit. (3) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of Law, action under Sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the Court relating to such conviction. (4) In a case not falling under Sub-rule(3), if the authority referred to in Sub-rule(2), considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order under Sub-rule(2)- (a) serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit, within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or such authority, such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; and (b) Take into consideration the representation, if any, submitted by the pensioner under Clause(3); (5) Where the authority competent to pass an order under Sub-rule (2) is the Government, the Orissa Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed. (6) An appeal against an order under Sub-rule(2) passed by any authority other than the Governor shall lie to the Governor and the Governor shall, in consultation with the Orissa Public Service Commissioner, pass such orders on the appeal as he deems fit.” Rule-7 - “Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension – (1) The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any department or judicial proceedings, the pensioner found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in duty during the period of his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: Provided that the Orissa Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the final orders are passed: Provided further that when a part of pension is withheld/withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of minimum limit. (2) (a) Such departmental proceedings referred to in Sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service: Provided that when the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority, subordinate to Government that authority shall submit a report recording its finding to the Government. (b) Such departmental proceedings as referred to in Sub-rule (1) if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment; (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such instruction; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may, direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service. (c) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (d) In the case of Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under Clauses (a) and (b), a provisional pension as provided in Rule 66 shall be sanctioned. (e) Where the Government decide not to withhold or withdraw pension but order recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. Rule-66– Grant of provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceeding is pending – (1) Where departmental or judicial proceedings are pending in respect of Government servant on the date of his retirement referred to in, he shall be paid a provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service up to the date of retirement of the Government servant; or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension. (2) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the Departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final order thereon: Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 16 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1962 for imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii-A) of Rule 13 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the Government servant. (3) The provisional pension shall be authorised during the period commencing from the date of retirement up to and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceeding, final orders are passed by the competent authority. (4) The authority competent to sanction pension shall be the authority competent to sanction provisional pension. (3) The provisional pension shall be authorised during the period commencing from the date of retirement up to and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceeding, final orders are passed by the competent authority. (4) The authority competent to sanction pension shall be the authority competent to sanction provisional pension. (5) Payment of provisional pension made under Sub-rule(1) shall be adjusted against final retirement benefits sanctioned to such Government servant upon conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally-sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period.” 13. It is necessary to discuss Rule 7 of the Rules 1992, which provides power upon the Government to initiate proceeding for withholding pension full or part of the pension. From perusal of the said provision government has been provided with the power to withhold pension or gratuity, or both either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any department or judicial proceedings, the pensioner found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in duty during the period of his service, subject to certain condition. In that provision of law, under the explanation head departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges are issued to the Government servant or pensioner, of if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from the date of his suspension. Judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted in the case of criminal proceedings, in the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made. In the case of Civil proceedings, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the court. In the said provision there is a provision to consult with the Orissa Public Service Commission before final order is passed. 14. Under the provisions of Clause 7(2)(d) there is a provision for payment of provisional pension on account of pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings, provisional pension which shall be sanctioned by the sanctioning authority as provided under Rule 66 of the Rules, 1992. 14. Under the provisions of Clause 7(2)(d) there is a provision for payment of provisional pension on account of pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings, provisional pension which shall be sanctioned by the sanctioning authority as provided under Rule 66 of the Rules, 1992. In this connection, against the petitioner a departmental proceeding was initiated on the basis of institution of criminal case, although the departmental proceeding was kept in abeyance on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M.Paul Anthony -v- Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another, reported in (1999)3 SCC 679 , the petitioner has subsequently been convicted in the said criminal case and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5000/-. 15. The authority has sanction provisional pension in view of the provision as contained in Rule 66 as has also been provided under the provision as contained in Rule 7(2)(d) of the Rules, 1992 which the petitioner continues to get it till the order of conviction has been passed by the trial court. 16. After being convicted in the criminal case by the trial court, order impugned has been passed by which pension and gratuity both in full has been withheld permanently, against which the petitioner has filed with writ petition, inter alia, on the grievance that since the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which has been admitted for final hearing after passing order of keeping the sentence in abeyance, as such pendency of criminal appeal may be treated as continuance of the proceeding in the trial court and continue to pay provisional in view of the provisions as contained in Rule 66 read with Rule 7(2)(d) of the Rules, 1992. 17. To appreciate this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is relevant to discuss relevant provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules, 1992 which is being quoted hereinabove, wherein provisions has been made for pension subject to future good conduct. There is provision as contained in Rule 6(3) that where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a court of law, action under sub-rule(1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court relating to such conviction. There is provision as contained in Rule 6(3) that where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a court of law, action under sub-rule(1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court relating to such conviction. From perusal of the provision as contained in Rule 6(3), it is evident that if a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a court of law, action under Sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court relating to such conviction. 18. The authority in exercise of power conferred under Rule 6(3) of the Rules, 1992 has passed the impugned order because of conviction of the petitioner in the criminal case as provided in the said rule that action under sub-rule(1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court relating to such conviction. 19. If the provision as contained in Rule 7 will be read together with the provisions as contained in Rule 6, contention of the petition that pendency of the criminal appeal may be treated as continuation of the proceeding of the trial court, cannot be accepted because reference made in the provision is that conviction by a court of law which does not deal with the appellate court and further it has been more specifically under sub-rule(1) that action shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court relating to such conviction. 20. In this case, since the petitioner has been convicted of a serious crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act for illegal gratification by court of law and as such the authority has passed the order impugned in exercise of said power. 21. Since the petitioner has been convicted, hence provision as contained under Rule 7(2)(d) of the Rules, 1992 will not be applicable because the provision made therein clearly speaks that in case of pendency of any departmental or judicial proceeding, pensioner will till continue to get provisional pension as provided under Rule 66 of the Rules, 1992. Rule 66 also provides that benefit of provisional pension shall be given in case of pendency of departmental or judicial proceeding. Since the petitioner has already been convicted by the trial court, hence it cannot be said that pendency of criminal proceeding and as such he is not entitled to get benefit of provisional pension. Rule 66 also provides that benefit of provisional pension shall be given in case of pendency of departmental or judicial proceeding. Since the petitioner has already been convicted by the trial court, hence it cannot be said that pendency of criminal proceeding and as such he is not entitled to get benefit of provisional pension. Since the order by which full and final pension has been withheld permanently, has been challenged before this Court on the ground that criminal appeal pending before this Court may be treated as pending proceeding and as such it may be construed that the order of conviction has not attained its finality, hence in view of the Rule 7 of the Rules, 1992 the petitioner will continue to get pension because under Rule 7 power has been conferred upon the government to withhold pension or gratuity, or both either in full or in part permanently if the petitioner found guilty of grave misconduct either in a departmental or judicial proceeding. Since the criminal appeal is pending as such it cannot be said that the petitioner has found guilty of grave misconduct in the judicial proceeding. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted on the ground that pendency of criminal appeal cannot be said to be continuance of the proceeding in the trial court as has been clarified under the provisions as contained in Rule 6(3) of the Rules, 1992 which only depicts regarding order of conviction by the trial court. 22. So far as the second contention that Orissa Public Service Commission has not been consulted, to discuss this aspect of the matter it is necessary to see Rule 7 of the Rules, 1992 which provides that before passing final order under Rule 7 Orissa Public Service Commission shall be consulted before passing final order. This proviso to the said provision cannot be read in isolation rather it is to be read along with Rule 6(5) which speaks where the authority competent to pass an order under Sub-rule(2) is the Government, the Orissa Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed. This proviso to the said provision cannot be read in isolation rather it is to be read along with Rule 6(5) which speaks where the authority competent to pass an order under Sub-rule(2) is the Government, the Orissa Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed. Here in this case it is not the government who has passed order, rather the General Manager (HR & A) of the Central Electricity Supply of Orissa, Bhubaneswar since the petitioner was an employee under the Corporation has passed the order, hence first proviso to Rule 7 of the Rules, 1992 will not be applicable. 23. In view of the discussions made herein above, I find that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.