JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. I.A. Nos. 4361 of 2021; 4363 of 2021; 4360 of 2021 and; 4362 of 2021: 1. All these interlocutory applications have been filed for condoning the delay of 127 days, which has occurred in preferring these appeals. 2. No counter affidavit to the delay condonation application has been filed. 3. Heard the parties. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in these applications, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring these appeals within time. 5. Accordingly, these interlocutory applications are allowed and the delay of 127 days in preferring these appeals, are hereby condoned. 6. With the consent of the parties, the matters have been heard at this stage for final disposal. L.P.A. No. 09 of 2020; L.P.A. No.07 of 2020; L.P.A. No.08 of 2020 and; L.P.A. No.10 of 2020: 7. All these appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent are directed against the order/judgment dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1804 of 2018; W.P.(S) No. 1810 of 2018; W.P.(S) No. 1816 of 2018 and; W.P.(S) No. 1766 of 2018, respectively by way of common order by which the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has quashed the impugned letter as contained in Letter dated 08.08.2017 by which the pension of the writ petitioners have been withdrawn as also for quashing of the order for withholding commutation and pension. 8. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated herein, read as under: L.P.A. No. 09 of 2020: The writ petitioner was appointed as Probationary Officer in the Indian Overseas Bank on 17.11.1980. The writ petitioner was issued with a departmental charge-sheet dated 17.07.2000 by the Bank and the disciplinary authority ordered for enquiring into the charges and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner. Simultaneously, the matter was taken up by the CBI for investigation in RC No.21(A)/1994-D against the writ petitioner and in the departmental proceeding, an enquiry report dated 25.11.2002 was submitted by the authority. Simultaneously, the matter was taken up by the CBI for investigation in RC No.21(A)/1994-D against the writ petitioner and in the departmental proceeding, an enquiry report dated 25.11.2002 was submitted by the authority. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding, punishment vide order dated 07.05.2003 was awarded to the writ petitioner by the Deputy General Manager of reduction in basic pay by five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with further direction that the writ petitioner would not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing the future increment of pay in terms of Regulation 4(f) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officers Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 07.05.2003, the writ petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide order dated 13.11.2003 modified the penalty so awarded. Being aggrieved with the appellate order, the writ petitioner preferred review before the reviewing authority, who rejected the review application vide order dated 07.07.2004. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was paid the salary in terms of the modification so made, till the date of his superannuation, i.e., till 31.07.2013. The writ petitioner made representation to release the pensionary benefits vide letters dated 02.09.2013, 01.10.2013 and 16.01.2014 but no response was given, as such, an application under the Right to Information Act was made vide application dated 05.03.2014. In response to the said application, the Bank informed the writ petitioner that as the CBI enquiry was pending against him, he had been granted provisional pension withholding commutation and other terminal benefits in terms of Regulation 46 and 47 of the Regulation, 1995 and the release of terminal benefits would be decided after passing of the final order by the Court. The writ petitioner challenged the same before the Controlling Authority, Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna and vide order passed in File No.48/1(06)/2014/ALC-1, the authority order the Bank to pay the writ petitioner his gratuity along with interest and the same was paid in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner challenged the same before the Controlling Authority, Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna and vide order passed in File No.48/1(06)/2014/ALC-1, the authority order the Bank to pay the writ petitioner his gratuity along with interest and the same was paid in favour of the writ petitioner. Thereafter, vide judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2017, the writ petitioner got convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 r/w 120B, 467 r/w 120B, 468 r/w 120B and 471 r/w 120B, 477A r/w 120B of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction dated 07.02.2017, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) no. 397 of 2017. The Bank, on being apprised about the conviction of the writ petitioner, the pension of the writ petitioner was withdrawn with immediate effect which was informed to the writ petitioner vide letter dated 08.08.2017. L.P.A. No.07 of 2020: The writ petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Indian Overseas Bank. The writ petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet dated 17.07.2000 by the Bank and the disciplinary authority ordered for enquiring into the charges and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner. Simultaneously, the matter was taken up by the CBI for investigation in RC No.21(A)/1994-D against the writ petitioner. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding, punishment vide order dated 07.05.2003 was awarded to the writ petitioner by the Deputy General Manager of reduction in basic pay by five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with further direction that the writ petitioner would not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing the future increment of pay in terms of Regulation 4(f) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officers Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 07.05.2003, the writ petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide order dated 13.11.2003 modified the penalty so awarded. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was paid the salary in terms of the punishment so awarded, till the date of his superannuation, i.e., till 31.07.2014. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 07.05.2003, the writ petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide order dated 13.11.2003 modified the penalty so awarded. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was paid the salary in terms of the punishment so awarded, till the date of his superannuation, i.e., till 31.07.2014. Thereafter, vide judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2017, the writ petitioner got convicted and thereafter, the respondent authorities withdrew the pension of the petitioner in its entirety vide the memo contained in letter no.PAD/Pension/385/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction dated 07.02.2017, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) no. 382 of 2017 which was informed by the writ petitioner to the respondent authorities by making representation. L.P.A. No.08 of 2020: The writ petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Indian Overseas Bank on 29.06.1982. The writ petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet dated 17.07.2000 by the Bank and the disciplinary authority ordered for enquiring into the charges and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner. Simultaneously, the matter was taken up by the CBI for investigation in RC No.21(A)/1994-D against the writ petitioner. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding, punishment vide order dated 26.06.2003 was awarded to the writ petitioner by the Deputy General Manager of reduction in basic pay by two stages in the time scale of pay in terms of Clause 6(c) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was paid the salary in terms of the punishment so awarded, till the date of his superannuation, i.e., till 31.01.2017. Thereafter, vide judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2017, the writ petitioner got convicted and thereafter, the respondent authorities withdrew the pension of the petitioner in its entirety with immediate effect vide the memo contained in letter No. PAD/Pension/295/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017, in terms of Regulation 43 of the Pension Regulation. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction dated 07.02.2017, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) no. 382 of 2017 which was informed by the writ petitioner to the respondent authorities by making representation. L.P.A. No.10 of 2020: The writ petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Indian Overseas Bank on 02.08.1976. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction dated 07.02.2017, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) no. 382 of 2017 which was informed by the writ petitioner to the respondent authorities by making representation. L.P.A. No.10 of 2020: The writ petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Indian Overseas Bank on 02.08.1976. The writ petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet dated 17.07.2000 by the Bank and the disciplinary authority ordered for enquiring into the charges and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner. Simultaneously, the matter was taken up by the CBI for investigation in RC No.21(A)/1994-D against the writ petitioner. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding, punishment vide order dated 19.10.2013 was awarded to the writ petitioner of withholding of 1/3rd of eligible pension permanently in terms of Clause 43 r/w 48 of the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995. Thereafter, being aggrieved with the said order, the writ petitioner preferred appeal departmentally, which was decided vide order dated 14.06.2014 affirming the earlier punishment order. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the punishment, preferred an industrial dispute assailing the order dated 14.06.2014 and the said dispute was registered as Industrial Dispute Case No. 5 of 2015, whereby, the punishment imposed against the writ petitioner got modified to withholding of pension by 1/4th permanently as per the Pension Regulation of the respondents. Thereafter, vide judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2017, the writ petitioner got convicted and thereafter, the respondent authorities withdrew the pension of the petitioner in its entirety with immediate effect vide the memo contained in letter No. PAD/Pension/293/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017, in terms of Regulation 43 of the Pension Regulation. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction dated 07.02.2017, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) no. 371 of 2017 which was informed by the writ petitioner to the respondent authorities by making representation. 9. It is evident from the factual aspect as per the pleading made in the writ petition as referred above that the writ petitioners were working under the appellant-Indian Overseas Bank and subjected to a criminal case being RC-21(A)/1994-D and simultaneous to the criminal case, a departmental proceedings was also initiated. 9. It is evident from the factual aspect as per the pleading made in the writ petition as referred above that the writ petitioners were working under the appellant-Indian Overseas Bank and subjected to a criminal case being RC-21(A)/1994-D and simultaneous to the criminal case, a departmental proceedings was also initiated. However, some of the petitioners have been superannuated and on conclusion of the departmental proceedings by virtue of the order of punishment dated 07.05.2003 issued with respect to the writ petitioners of writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1804 of 2018 and W.P.(S) No. 1810 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the penalty of reduction in basic pay of five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with further direction that the petitioners will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing future increment of pay in terms of Regulation 4(f) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 has been inflicted upon the petitioners. Vide order of punishment dated 26.06.2003 against the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.1816 of 2018, by which the basic pay by two stages in the scale of pay in terms of Clause 6 (C) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 between the bank and workman has been inflicted. While the punishment has been inflicted upon the writ petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 1766 of 2018 vide order dated 19.10.2013 withholding of 1/3rd of eligible pension permanently in terms of Clause 43 r/w 48 of the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees ) Pension Regulation, 1995. The writ petitioners, being aggrieved by the orders of punishment [save and except petitioner in W.P.(S) No.1816/2018] preferred inter-departmental appeal before the appellate authority, who, upon careful consideration of the averments made in the memo of appeal, vide order dated 13.11.2003 has been pleased to modify the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 07.05.2003; whereby and wherein the appellate authority has modified the original punishment order inflicted in case of petitioner in W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2018 and W.P.(S) No. 1810 of 2018 which was however, challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2018 by way of preferring review application, but the same was rejected vide order dated 07.07.2004. While, on the other hand, the appeal of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.1766 of 2018 was dismissed by upholding the order of punishment, which was challenged before the learned Industrial Tribunal by filing Industrial Dispute Case No.5/15 and vide its order dated 17.02.2016, reduced pension of the writ petitioner has been revised from 1/3rd to 1/4th and the pension so revised is being paid to the writ petitioner. Since then, the writ petitioners are getting the salary/pension in view of final decisions taken by the respondents after the outcome of appeal/review of the respective punishment orders. The writ petitioner of W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2018, after his superannuation, some retiral benefit had been withheld. Aggrieved therewith, petitioner submitted an application dated 05.03.2014 under Right to Information Act, 2005, and in response thereto, the respondents vide letter dated 07.04.2014 informed that as a CBI case was pending against the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner had been granted Provisional Pension withholding commutation and other terminal benefits in terms of Regulation 46 and 47 of IOB Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995, which has also been challenged in the writ petition. 10. The case of the writ petitioners is that the criminal case pending before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction has finally been concluded and the writ petitioners have been convicted in the aforesaid criminal case vide judgment dated 07.02.2017. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities has withdrawn the pension of the petitioners in its entirety vide different letters dated 08.08.2017 stipulating therein that since the competent court of criminal jurisdiction, i.e., CBI Court, Dhanbad has convicted the writ petitioners vide order dated 24.05.2017 as has been mentioned in Bank’s letter is 24.05.2017 wherein the actual date is 07.02.2017, in terms of Regulation 43 of the Pension Regulation and the pension of the writ petitioner is withdrawn with immediate effect as all the petitioners have been retired from the services. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioners have represented before the respondents stating therein that the order passed by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court by filing different Cr. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioners have represented before the respondents stating therein that the order passed by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court by filing different Cr. Appeal (S.J.) Nos.371/2017, 382/2017 and 397/2017 by the respective petitioner and which are admitted for further hearing and the writ petitioners have been enlarged on bail, therefore, withdrawal of the pension cannot be said to be justified, but, no positive direction has been passed by recalling the decision of withdrawal of pension. The writ petitioners, having no alternative remedy, approached this Court by filing writ petition challenging the order of withdrawal of pension on the ground that the said decision has been take in terms of Regulation 43 of the Pension Rules but the said order ought not to have been passed by taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioners have preferred a statutory appeal against the judgment of conviction which is lying pending for its consideration before this Court. The contention has been raised that the pension is the only means of livelihood of the writ petitioners and withholding the same amounts to depriving the writ petitioners from life and livelihood without following the due procedure established under the law and as such, the same since is in the teeth of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the same requires interference. 11. The respondents have appeared and taken the ground that it is incorrect on the part of the writ petitioners to take the ground about the decision taken for withdrawal of pension in view of Regulation 43 since Regulation 43 confers power upon the respondent authority-Bank, on the ground of conviction of criminal case, to withhold or withdraw the pension and since the writ petitioners have been convicted by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction, therefore, is in such circumstances, the provision of Regulation 43 has been invoked, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. 12. The learned Single Judge by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court in Doodhnath Pandey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2007 (4) JCR 1; State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr., reported in 2013 (12) SCC 210 ; Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. 12. The learned Single Judge by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court in Doodhnath Pandey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2007 (4) JCR 1; State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr., reported in 2013 (12) SCC 210 ; Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2008) 2 JCR 79 (SC) and; State of Bihar Vs. Yogendra Singh, reported in 2009 (1) PLJR 187 has quashed the impugned letter and remitted the matter to the respondent authorities to take decision afresh in the case of the writ petitioners in the light of the aforesaid judgments and also in view of the fact that other similarly situated persons have been allowed to withdraw pension, which is the subject matter of the instant appeals. 13. Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge putting reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Doodhnath Pandey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra); Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Vrs. State of Jharkhand (supra); Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) and; State of Bihar Vs. Yogendra Singh (supra) are not at all applicable since the aforesaid judgments have been rendered by taking into consideration the provision of Rule 43-B of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules but the aforesaid pension rule is not the subject matter of the lis rather decision has been taken by the respondent Bank on the basis of the provision of Regulation 43 which does confer power upon the respondent-Bank to withhold or withdraw the pension on the ground of conviction of its employee by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is based upon the proposition of law laid down in Doodhnath Pandey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra); Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Vrs. State of Jharkhand (supra); Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) and; State of Bihar Vs. Yogendra Singh (supra) since are not applicable in the facts of the given case, therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra); Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Vrs. State of Jharkhand (supra); Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) and; State of Bihar Vs. Yogendra Singh (supra) since are not applicable in the facts of the given case, therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has further been contended that the learned Single Judge although has remitted the matter before the authority and directed to take a fresh decision in the light of the aforesaid judgments. The question has been raised that when the aforesaid judgments, i.e., Doodhnath Pandey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra); Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Vrs. State of Jharkhand (supra); Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) and; State of Bihar Vs. Yogendra Singh (supra) are not at all applicable, then, the direction passed to the respondent authority to take a fresh decision in the light of the aforesaid judgments, cannot be said to be proper. 14. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the writ petitioners of L.P.A. No.07 of 2020; L.P.A. No.08 of 2020 and; L.P.A. No.10 of 2020 has not disputed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant so far as it relates to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments rather the has fairly submitted that the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court are with respect to the provision as contained under Rule 43-B of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules but the submission has been made that before exercising the power conferred under Regulation 43 of the Regulation, the cardinal principle of natural justice has not been followed, hence, it has been contended that since the pension has been granted and before taking away the said right, the minimum requirement to observe the principles of natural justice ought to have been followed, hence, on this ground the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from error and moreover the matter has been remitted before the authority to take a fresh decision and the respondent can well pass an order after providing an opportunity in this regard in the light of the provision of Regulation 43. 15. Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners in L.P.A. No. 09 of 2020 has submitted in addition to the argument advanced on behalf of Mr. 15. Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners in L.P.A. No. 09 of 2020 has submitted in addition to the argument advanced on behalf of Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel that the competent authority of the appellant will be the officer at the rank of Executive Director but the General Manager has taken the decision of withdrawal of the pension, hence, on this count, the order withholding the pension exercising the power conferred under Regulation 43 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 17. The argument which has been advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge by putting reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Doodhnath Pandey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra); Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Vrs. State of Jharkhand (supra); Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) and; State of Bihar Vs. Yogendra Singh (supra) has committed gross error since the said judgments are not applicable with respect to the case of the employees of the respondent-Bank rather the said judgments pertain to the pensioners who have retired from the service of the State Government, i.e., State of Jharkhand. 18. This Court, in order to examine the aforesaid fact, deems it fit and proper to scrutinize the aforesaid judgments. The first judgment is of Doodhnath Pandey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra). It is evident from bare perusal of the factual aspect, subject matter of which is as to whether in case of pendency of the departmental or judicial proceeding, the pension of pensioner can be withheld in exercise of power conferred under Rule 43-B of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules. The further issue was as to whether in absence of any statutory power and merely on the basis of executive instruction, the leave encashment can be withheld. The Special Bench, while deciding the issue and taking into consideration the provision of Rule 43-B of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, came to a finding that the pension cannot be withheld during pendency of either departmental or judicial proceeding rather the same can only be withheld on the basis of the finding recorded either in the departmental or judicial proceeding. The Special Bench, while deciding the issue and taking into consideration the provision of Rule 43-B of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, came to a finding that the pension cannot be withheld during pendency of either departmental or judicial proceeding rather the same can only be withheld on the basis of the finding recorded either in the departmental or judicial proceeding. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under: “35(i) Under Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold Gratuity and Pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding. It does not give any power to withhold Leave Encashment at any stage either prior to the proceeding or after conclusion of the proceeding. …” In the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. (supra), the same issue as was in the case of Doodhnath Pandey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) was the subject matter wherein again the same issue crept up that as to whether during pendency of the departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensionary benefit can be withheld. The Hon'ble Apex Court had held in the said judgment that during pendency of the departmental or judicial proceeding, there cannot be any order of withholding of pension. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under: “5. The Division Bench has held that the question is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision of that Court in Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand [(2007) 2 BLJR 2847 : (2007) 4 JCR 1]. In the said Full Bench judgment dated 28-8-2007, after detailed discussions on the various nuances of the subject-matter, the High Court has held: “To sum up the answers for the two questions are as follows: (i) Under Rules 43(a) and 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold gratuity and pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding. It does not give any power to withhold leave encashment at any stage either prior to the proceeding or after conclusion of the proceeding. (ii) The circular, issued by the Finance Department, referring to the withholding of the leave encashment would not apply to the present facts of the case as it has no sanctity of law.” 13. It does not give any power to withhold leave encashment at any stage either prior to the proceeding or after conclusion of the proceeding. (ii) The circular, issued by the Finance Department, referring to the withholding of the leave encashment would not apply to the present facts of the case as it has no sanctity of law.” 13. A reading of Rule 43(b) makes it abundantly clear that even after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it is permissible for the Government to withhold pension, etc. only when a finding is recorded either in departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings that the employee had committed grave misconduct in the discharge of his duty while in his office. There is no provision in the Rules for withholding of the pension/gratuity when such departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending.” In the case of Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) also, the issue of Rule 43-B of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules was the subject matter. Further in State of Bihar Vs. Yogendra Singh (supra), the issue of the Rule 43-B of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules was the subject matter. 19. Although the principle which has been discussed in the aforesaid judgments pertains to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules wherein power has been conferred upon the State to withhold the pension as a whole or part of it subject to certain conditions. 19. Although the principle which has been discussed in the aforesaid judgments pertains to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules wherein power has been conferred upon the State to withhold the pension as a whole or part of it subject to certain conditions. Rule 43(b) of the said Rule, reads as under : “43(b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension of any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss cause to the Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have cause pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during the service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: Provided that – (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment; (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government; (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made; (b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a); and (c) the Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. ” The provision of Rule 43 of the Regulation applicable to the writ petitioners in this case is also required to be referred which reads as under: “43. ” The provision of Rule 43 of the Regulation applicable to the writ petitioners in this case is also required to be referred which reads as under: “43. Withholding or withdrawal of pension :- The Competent Authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or criminal breach of trust or forgery or acting fraudulently or is found guilty of grave misconduct: provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the minimum pension per mensem payable under these regulations.” The Regulation 43 of the Regulation stipulates that the competent authority has got power to withhold or withdraw the pension in case of conviction of the employee in a criminal case. 20. This Court, after going through the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and of High Court as referred above basis upon which the writ petition has been allowed, is of the view that the ratio laid down in the said judgment will not be applicable in the facts of the given case reason being that in all the cases, consideration of the provision of Rule 43-B of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules is an issue, meaning thereby, the cases pertain to the employees working under the State of Jharkhand but herein the writ petitioners were working under the respondent-Bank which is having statutory regulation to deal with the situation of the pensioners in consequence of conviction, i.e., available under Regulation 43. However, the matter has been remitted before the respondents. The contention has been raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant/respondents that while remitting the matter before the authority concerned, the learned Single Judge has directed to take a fresh decision in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred above. It has been contended that when the ratio of the said judgments is not applicable in the facts of the given case, therefore, passing of an order afresh in the light of the aforesaid judgment cannot be said to be correct. 21. It has been contended that when the ratio of the said judgments is not applicable in the facts of the given case, therefore, passing of an order afresh in the light of the aforesaid judgment cannot be said to be correct. 21. This Court, after appreciating the aforesaid argument, is in agreement with the said submission since the direction could have been passed upon the respondents to take a decision afresh in the light of the judgments but the judgments must be based upon the factual aspect of the given fact where the matter is to be decided afresh on remand. But, herein, on the basis of the judgments the appellants/respondents have been directed to take a decision afresh, since is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the given case as per the discussion made hereinabove, therefore, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any direction upon the respondents to take a decision afresh in the light of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court in Doodhnath Pandey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra); State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. (supra); Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) and; State of Bihar Vs. Yogendra Singh (supra). 22. The ground which has been agitated on behalf of the writ petitioners respondent herein, that even accepting that the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable in the facts of the given case but the order of withdrawal of pension in absence of observance of principles of natural justice cannot be said to be justified. Further, argument has also been made by Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in L.P.A. No. 09 of 2020 that the order has not been passed by a competent authority since the writ petitioner has been dealt with by passing order of withdrawal of pension by the General Manager who is not the competent authority rather the competent authority is the Executive Director. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank, however, has not disputed the fact about the observance of principles of natural justice and the order is to be passed by the competent authority. 24. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank, however, has not disputed the fact about the observance of principles of natural justice and the order is to be passed by the competent authority. 24. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties on the point of non-observance of principles of natural justice and the order is to be passed by the competent authority and is of the view that although under the Regulation 43 there is no reference of observance of principles of natural justice before taking decision to withdraw or withheld the pension but the cardinal principles of natural justice is required to be followed since the withdrawal or withholding of pension is the vital right of the pensioners and once the pension has been treated to be not a bounty rather it is a right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India then before taking any decision of withdrawing or withholding the pension, observance of principles of natural justice is required to be followed even if there is no stipulation made to that effect in the Regulation 43. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 , wherein at paragraph-33 it has been held which reads as under: “33. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order, dated June 12, 1968, denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. It may be that under the Pension Act (Act 23 of 5 1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned therein. That does not stand in the way of writ of mandamus being issued to the State to property consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law.” 25. That does not stand in the way of writ of mandamus being issued to the State to property consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law.” 25. The law is well-settled in this regard as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Anr., (1978) 1 SCC 248 wherein while testing validity of Section 10 of the Indian Passpost Act on the ground that before impounding the passport as required to be impounded under sub-section (3) of Section 10, there is no stipulation of observance of principles of natural justice but the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the proposition that even if there is no statutory mandate to give an opportunity of hearing before taking any decision which is having civil consequence, the principles of natural justice being the cardinal principle of law, is to be followed. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being reproduced as under: “184. It was submitted on behalf of the state that an order under sub-clause 10(3)(c) is on the subjective satisfaction of the passport authority and that as the decision is purely administrative in character it cannot be questioned in a court of law except on very limited grounds. Though the courts had taken the view that the principle of natural justice is inapplicable to administrative orders, there is a change in the judicial opinion subsequently. The frontier between judicial or quasi-judicial determination on the one hand and an executive or administrative determination on the other has become blurred. The rigid view that principles of natural justice applied only to judicial and quasi-judicial acts and not to administrative acts no longer holds the field. The views taken by the courts on this subject are not consistent. While earlier decisions were in favour of administrative convenience and efficiency at the expense of natural justice, the recent view is in favour of extending the application of natural justice and the duty to act fairly with a caution that the principle should not be extended to the extreme so as to affect adversely the administrative efficiency. While earlier decisions were in favour of administrative convenience and efficiency at the expense of natural justice, the recent view is in favour of extending the application of natural justice and the duty to act fairly with a caution that the principle should not be extended to the extreme so as to affect adversely the administrative efficiency. In this connection it is useful to quote the oft-repeated observations of Lord Justice Tucker in Russell v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109, 118] “The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter that is being dealt with, and so forth ... but, whatever standard is adopted, one essential is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case.” In R. v. Gaming Board ex. p. Benaim [ (1970) 2 QB 417 : (1970) 2 All ER 528] Lord Denning held that the view that the principle of natural justice applied only to judicial proceedings and not to administrative proceedings has been overruled in Ridge v. Baldwin [(1964) AC 40]. The guidance that was given to the Gaming Board was that they should follow the principles laid down in the case of immigrants, namely, that they have no right to come in, but they have a right to be heard. The Court held in construing the words the Board “shall have regard only” to the matter specified, the Board has a duty to act fairly and it must give the applicant an opportunity of satisfying them of the matter specified in the section. They must let him know what their impressions are so that he can disabuse them. The reference to the cases of immigrants is to the decisions of Chief Justice Parker in Re H. K. (An infant [(1967) 2 QB 617, 630] ). In cases of immigrants though they had no right to come into the country it was held that they have a right to be heard. These observations apply to the present case and the plea of the petitioner that the authority should act fairly and that they must let her know what their impressions are so that, if possible, she can disabuse them, is sound.” 26. These observations apply to the present case and the plea of the petitioner that the authority should act fairly and that they must let her know what their impressions are so that, if possible, she can disabuse them, is sound.” 26. This Court by applying the aforesaid judgment in the facts of the given case and taking into consideration the provision of Regulation 43 wherein also there is no stipulation of observance of principles of natural justice before taking any adverse decision regarding withdrawal or withholding of pension, but, it is the bounded duty of the competent authority to provide an opportunity of hearing to the concerned pensioner so as to observe the cardinal principle of law regarding the observance of principles of natural justice. 27. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge regarding showing interference with the impugned orders based upon the applicability of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court in Doodhnath Pandey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra); State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. (supra); Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) and; State of Bihar Vs. Yogendra Singh (supra) are hereby, held to be improper being not applicable in the facts of the given case. In consequence of the aforesaid finding, direction upon the respondents to take decision in the light of the aforesaid judgments is also hereby, held to be unjustified and accordingly, quashed. 28. However, the impugned orders have been passed without following the observance of principles of natural justice, therefore, the impugned orders, i.e. letter No. PAD/Pension/292/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017 in W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2018, Letter No. PAD/Pension/385/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017 in W.P.(S) No.1810 of 2018, Letter No. PAD/Pension/293/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017 in 1766 of 2018 and letter No. PAD/Pension/295/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017 in W.P.(S) No.1816 of 2018, are hereby, quashed and set aside. 29. In consequence thereof, the matter is remitted before the competent authority to take decision afresh after issuance of notice upon the pensioners. The said show cause notice be issued in favour of the writ petitioners-pensioners individually within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The writ petitioners are to submit their reply within a further period of four weeks. The said show cause notice be issued in favour of the writ petitioners-pensioners individually within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The writ petitioners are to submit their reply within a further period of four weeks. The competent authority is directed to take decision, in accordance with law, within the further period of four weeks. The disbursement of the pensionary benefits will depend upon the final decision to be taken by the competent authority, as directed above. 30. In view thereof, all the instant appeals stand disposed of the aforesaid observation and direction. 31. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.