JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsels for the parties. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 01.07.2008 by which entire pension of the petitioner's husband has been withdrawn under Rule 43 of the Jharkhand Pension Rule. 3. The husband of the petitioner has been appointed under the respondents department as a Bill-Clerk, has served the department and on attaining the age of superannuation stands retired w.e.f. 31.01.2000. 4. A criminal case has been initiated against the petitioner's husband being R.C. Case No.4A/2001 and finally he has been convicted on 21.11.2005. Petitioner's husband has preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No.1424 of 2005, wherein he has granted bail by this Court, but during pendency of the appeal, he has died on 21.07.2012 and as such, criminal appeal stands abated. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Para-14 is relevant, which is quoted herein below: 14. That in reply to the statement made in paragraph-6, it is submitted that the pension of the petitioner's husband has been stopped subsequent to his conviction on a criminal case. Further Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Service Rule does not provide for giving an opportunity of hearing to the employee whose pension is proposed to be withheld or withdrawn. Further providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose as the petitioner cannot deny the fact that her husband has been convicted in a criminal case. 6. As per the stand of the State, no notice is required to be issued before passing any order under Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule. Thus, Rule 43(a) negates principle of natural justice and as such, there is no requirement of following the procedure of principle of natural justice. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 25.11.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.7829 of 2012 by learned Single Judge of this Court. Paragraphs-8 to 11 are relevant, which are quoted hereinbelow: 8. Reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State has submitted that, since the petitioner was convicted for a serious offence, in terms of Rule 43 (a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules his pension was withheld and since issuing a show-cause notice would have been a mere formality, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He has further submitted that, moreover, under Rule 43 (a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, there is no requirement of issuing show-cause notice to the ex-employee. 9. Rule 43 (a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules is extracted below: "Rule 43 (a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules: 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." 10. On a perusal of the aforesaid provision it is clear that the order under Rule 43 (a) has to be passed by the government. From the impugned order it does not appear that it has been passed with the approval of the government. From the philosophy behind the grant of pension it would be apparent that, the retiral benefits to an employee are valuable rights of an ex-employee. Deprivation of pension/retiral benefits of an ex-employee would have serious consequences. The very object of providing pension, that is, 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 dated 01.07.2008 is approved. The 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 person, though the statutory provision may not expressly provide the same. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.07.2008 is quashed. 8. Thus, issue stands squarely settled by the above judgment of this Court that the principle of natural justice has to be followed while passing order under Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule. 9. The stand taken in the present writ petition is the same as has been taken in the above referred writ petition. 10. Be that as it may, once the issue has already been settled by this Court holding that even for passing order under Rule 43(a), principle of natural justice has to be followed. 9. The stand taken in the present writ petition is the same as has been taken in the above referred writ petition. 10. Be that as it may, once the issue has already been settled by this Court holding that even for passing order under Rule 43(a), principle of natural justice has to be followed. In that view of the matter, any order passed, in contravention of the principle of natural justice, i.e. without notice, is nullity. 11. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 01.07.2008 is, hereby, quashed. 12. This writ petition stands allowed.