JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Notification as contained in Memo No. 1169, dated 25.08.2015, whereby his pension and gratuity has been permanently withheld under the provisions of Rule 43(a) of Jharkhand Pension Rule. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release entire retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, provident fund etc. along with statutory interest and other consequential benefit. Petitioner has also prayed for grant of subsistence allowance from 01.09.2009 till the date of his retirement in terms of Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code at the rate of 75% and 90% of the last pay drawn for the period under which he was put under suspension. 3. According to petitioner, he was appointed as Touring Veterinary Officer, Madhubani, Block-West Champaran and joined the post on 14.05.1979. He was thereafter transferred to Mandar as Block Animal Husbandry Officer on 08.05.1990 and he continued as such till the date of his retirement i.e. 30.06.2013. It is alleged that an FIR dated 04.02.1996 was instituted by the Department against several persons for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5(c), (d) and (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, being RC No. 53(A)/Pat for alleged embezzlement and misappropriation of Government funds from the Department. Chargesheet against the petitioner was submitted on 11.05.2000 and thereafter he was put under suspension vide order dated 06.07.2000. Petitioner was taken into custody on 08.06.2000 and was later on released on bail on 30.01.2001. However, petitioner was convicted vide Judgment dated 01.07.2009, passed in RC No. 53(A)/Pat and was awarded punishment of imprisonment of 5 years with a fine of Rs. 11,00,000/- failing which he had to undergo an additional punishment of custody of 21 months. Against the said Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 708 of 2009, which is pending before this Court. However, petitioner has already been granted bail vide order dated 15.09.2009. 4. It is case of the petitioner that he continued to be under suspension and retired as such on 30.06.2013. He was served with a show-cause notice bearing letter no. 264/2015 P.Pa. However, petitioner has already been granted bail vide order dated 15.09.2009. 4. It is case of the petitioner that he continued to be under suspension and retired as such on 30.06.2013. He was served with a show-cause notice bearing letter no. 264/2015 P.Pa. dated 13.04.2015 read with Memo No. 363, dated 26.03.2015 whereby and whereunder he was directed to submit his clarification within 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice as to why his pension and gratuity shall not be withheld for the alleged involvement in fodder scam case and conviction and sentence passed in RC No. 53(A)/96 - Pat. Petitioner filed reply thereof vide his reply dated 27.04.2015 and 18.05.2015. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner preferred W.P. (S) No. 3390 of 2015 in which counter affidavit was filed by the respondents referring therein memo no. 1169, dated 25.08.2015, wherein a decision with respect to withholding of petitioner’s pension and gratuity permanently had been taken in accordance with Rule 43(a) of Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, vide Departmental Notification No. 1169, dated 25.08.2015. Said memo no. 1169, dated 25.08.2015 was challenged by the petitioner by way of Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 9695 of 2017 in W.P. (S) No. 3390 of 2015. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the penalty order dated 25.08.2015 by way of fresh writ petition. Petitioner also made representation for grant of subsistence allowance as also for the grant of gratuity, pension and other retiral benefits but the same has not been replied till date. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Court, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. 6. Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not named in the FIR and the appeal against the conviction and sentence is pending before this Court. Learned counsel submits that the impugned notification as contained in Memo No. 1169, dated 25.08.2015 is illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merits and has been passed without application of mind. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned notification has been passed after 19 years of alleged misconduct which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that there has been no occasion that any departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner and he has retired from the service on 30.06.2013. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned notification has been passed after 19 years of alleged misconduct which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that there has been no occasion that any departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner and he has retired from the service on 30.06.2013. Learned counsel further submits that it is a settled law that any proceeding under Rule 43 of Jharkhand Pension Rules is to be initiated within 4 years of the alleged misconduct. However, in the instant case, FIR was registered in the year 1996 and thereafter no proceeding was initiated within 4 years of registration of the FIR. No show-cause notice under Rule 43 of Jharkhand Pension Rule had been issued to the petitioner nor any proceeding was initiated by the respondents. The show-cause under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rule was issued, which was already replied. Learned counsel further submits that proceeding under Rule 139 and Rule 43 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules is completely different in nature and cannot be clubbed or correlated. Learned counsel submits that a person cannot be deprived of his pension without authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that there is no specific order with respect to termination of services of the petitioner and it is an admitted fact that petitioner’s service came to an end by way of superannuation and petitioner continued to be under suspension at the time of superannuation. Learned counsel submits that pension is not an ex-gratia payment but it is a payment for the past services rendered. Pension is a social welfare measures rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life, ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age, they would not be left in lurch. 7. Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 25.11.2013, passed in W.P. (S) No. 7829 of 2012 wherein it has been held that principle of natural justice requires that when any action is taken against a person which would have evil consequences, a right of hearing and/or a show-cause notice must be given to the persons, though the statutory provision may not expressly provide the same. Learned counsel further submits that it has clearly held therein that the order under Rule 43(a) has to be passed by the government. The philosophy behind the grant of providing pension is that the ex-employee should not be left in destitution, is frustrated if the procedure which has been adopted by the respondents in issuing the impugned order is approved. Learned counsel submits that similar view has been taken in W.P. (S) No. 6162 of 2010. 8. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. 9. Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, AC to learned SC-V submits that petitioner has already been convicted in RC 53(A)/96 - Pat whereas trial is yet to be concluded in RC 48(A)/96-Pat. Learned counsel submits that though as per Rule 43(a) of Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, the future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension, but in view of fact that petitioner has already been convicted and sentenced, the same has been dismantled and he is no longer eligible for pension and/or gratuity etc. After considering facts and circumstances of the case and conviction of the petitioner in a criminal case, payment of pension and gratuity have been permanently withheld in accordance with Rule 43(a) of Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, which is fully justified and no interference is called for. This writ petition has no merits and may be dismissed. Learned counsel submits that subsistence allowance before the date of conviction has already been paid to the petitioner. The amount of GPF has also been released in favour of the petitioner. 10. Before dealing with the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to quote Rule 43(a) of Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, which states as under: “Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. The provincial Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a 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, Rule 27 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules says “Pension includes Gratuity.” 11. 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, Rule 27 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules says “Pension includes Gratuity.” 11. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it appears that petitioner had been convicted on 01.07.2009 i.e. during the service tenure while he had to retire from the service on 30.06.2013 and as such his claim for retiral benefits is inadmissible under the provisions of Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rules. The State Government has every right to withheld or withdraw pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or found guilty of grave misconduct. Prior to the date of conviction, petitioner was duly given subsistence allowance. There is no merit in this writ petition and as such this writ petition is dismissed.