ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the resolution as contained in memo no.8874 dated 06.11.2019 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi- respondent no.2 by the order of the Hon’ble Governor, Jharkhand, whereby entire pension of the petitioner has been withheld by invoking the provisions of Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer, Sonbarsha, District Saharsa (Bihar), a criminal case being Vigilance P.S. Case No.48 of 1992 was instituted against him under sections 420/468/469/477-A/120-B/109 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During pendency of the said case, the petitioner was allocated Jharkhand Cadre on bifurcation of the State of Bihar and creation of the State of Jharkhand and he superannuated from service on 31.08.2010 as Deputy Collector, Godda. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner was subsequently convicted vide judgment dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance-II, Patna in Special Case no.25 of 1992 (arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case no.48 of 1992) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Aggrieved by the said judgment, he filed an appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.324 of 2013 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, in which the lower court record was called and in the meantime provisional bail granted to the petitioner by the Trial Court was confirmed. 4. It is also submitted that after passing of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Government of Jharkhand through the Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 20.04.2015 for cancellation of benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP granted to him. He replied the said show cause notice on 02.06.2015, however, he was again issued show cause notice by the respondent no.2 on 24.07.2019 for withholding his entire pension under rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000. The said show cause notice was also replied by the petitioner on 6.9.2019. He replied the said show cause notice on 02.06.2015, however, he was again issued show cause notice by the respondent no.2 on 24.07.2019 for withholding his entire pension under rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000. The said show cause notice was also replied by the petitioner on 6.9.2019. However, the entire pension of the petitioner was withheld vide resolution as contained in memo no.8874 dated 06.11.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned resolution has been issued without considering the show cause reply filed by the petitioner and as such the same is liable to be set aside having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned resolution has been issued by ignoring the criteria fixed for withholding the pension under rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, as the entire pension of the petitioner has been withheld not with respect to any future conduct, rather his alleged conduct during past service tenure. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that after retirement of the petitioner, his retiral benefits were processed by the departmental authorities and the same were paid to him between the year 2012 and 2014. The final pension of the petitioner was fixed vide order dated 08.06.2014 as he did not inform the department regarding passing of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the said criminal case. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Patna Bihar vide letter no.751 dated 27.08.2014 communicated a copy of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2013 passed against the petitioner in the said criminal case. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued show cause notice to submit his reply and the impugned resolution has been issued only after considering his reply. Thus, the petitioner cannot allege violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that mere suspension of sentence and grant of bail to a convict cannot imply that the judgment of conviction has ceased to operate. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5 submits that on receipt of the departmental sanction letter no. 3085 dated 08.06.2011, the office of the respondent no.5 approved the qualifying service of the petitioner for admissible pension, gratuity and commutation of pension vide PPO No.JMTPAR3784 dated 13.07.2011. 8. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5 submits that on receipt of the departmental sanction letter no. 3085 dated 08.06.2011, the office of the respondent no.5 approved the qualifying service of the petitioner for admissible pension, gratuity and commutation of pension vide PPO No.JMTPAR3784 dated 13.07.2011. 8. It is further submitted that while granting departmental sanction for payment of retiral dues of the petitioner, the respondent no. 5 was not informed that any criminal case was pending against him. As per rule 43 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 and Finance Department Resolution No. 9/P(6)-03/2017-110/VP dated 23.07.2018, if judicial/departmental proceeding is continuing against a government employee on the date of his retirement, then only provisional pension will be granted and gratuity and commutation of pension will be withheld. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned resolution as contained in memo No.8874 dated 06.11.2019, whereby entire pension of the petitioner has been withheld in exercise of power under rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000. 10. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that withholding of pension of the petitioner under rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 for his alleged unsatisfactory conduct during past service is unlawful for want of jurisdiction. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on a judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Nityanand Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Others, reported in 2016 (2) PLJR 315 , wherein while interpreting the provisions of rules 43(a) and 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, it has been held as under:- “6. Before coming to the proviso which consists of three clauses (a), (b) and (c) along with an explanation provided after clause (c), it is obvious from a comparison of Rule 43(a) with Rule 43(b) that the former relates to future good conduct of a pensioner and the same may be invoked if he is convicted of serious crime or is held guilty of grave misconduct. The serious crime or grave misconduct under this provision, i.e. rule 43(a) is not related to his conduct during service and/or service rendered on reemployment. It is a conduct expected of a pensioner in future after he is granted a pension. The serious crime or grave misconduct under this provision, i.e. rule 43(a) is not related to his conduct during service and/or service rendered on reemployment. It is a conduct expected of a pensioner in future after he is granted a pension. Thus, there is clear distinction between the aim and object of Rule 43(a) and that of Rule 43(b). Both the provisions operate in different areas having different connotations. The decision under rule 43(a) is not on account of any departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding instituted when the government servant was in service or instituted later in respect of an event which related to his service rendered before retirement or on re-employment. On the other hand, the purpose of Rule 43(b) is clearly to enable the State government to continue or initiate a departmental or judicial proceeding in respect of omissions or commissions by a government servant done while he was in service. Such provision in the rules governing pension vests the State Government with necessary powers to maintain action against a retired government employee for his conduct while in service but subject to some restrictions mentioned in the proviso. The purpose of proviso is to safeguard pensioners or superannuated employees from loss of pension on account of belated disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings. On the other hand, the future good conduct mentioned in Rule 43(a) is good conduct expected of every government servant even after -4- superannuation. Such future conduct is not related to his service period at all. 7. Hence, the requirement of proviso (a) (ii) cannot apply to Rule 43(a). Such provision in the proviso puts a restriction upon the power of the State government to initiate a departmental proceeding if not instituted while the government servant was in service, either before retirement or during re-employment. Such departmental proceeding, by virtue of the provision under consideration cannot be in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. Rule 43 (a) comes into play after retirement and applies till pensioner breathes his last. There can be no question of time limitation for exercise of such power because this Rule is not at all connected with any departmental proceeding. Rule 43(a) nowhere refers to any departmental proceeding instituted earlier or to be instituted later. Rule 43 (a) comes into play after retirement and applies till pensioner breathes his last. There can be no question of time limitation for exercise of such power because this Rule is not at all connected with any departmental proceeding. Rule 43(a) nowhere refers to any departmental proceeding instituted earlier or to be instituted later. Hence, it cannot be governed by proviso (a) (ii) to Rule 43(b) as it can apply only to initiation of departmental proceeding by the Government after an employee has retired.” 12. The petitioner also puts reliance on a judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Sharat Chandra Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others [LPA No. 281 of 2018], wherein the view taken by learned Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Nityanand Kuamr Singh (Supra.) has been concurred holding inter alia that the Gratuity or other retiral benefits cannot be withheld by the State authorities under rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules on the ground of grave misconduct of the pensioner during his service period, as rule 43(a) has nothing to do with the past service or any misconduct of the pensioner during the course of service, rather it is with respect to future conduct of the concerned pensioner. 13. It is, thus, amply clear that rule 43(a) of Rules, 2000 is not related to the conduct of an employee during service and/or service rendered on re-employment rather it is related to the future conduct of an ex-employee/pensioner. After grant of pension it is expected from a pensioner that his conduct will be good in future and if he convicted for serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct, then the government is within its jurisdiction to withhold or withdraw the whole or any part of a pension under rule 43(a). The said provision comes into play after retirement and applies till the pensioner breathes his last. 14. The said provision comes into play after retirement and applies till the pensioner breathes his last. 14. In the case in hand, it is evident that the impugned resolution, withholding the entire pension of the petitioner, has been issued invoking the power under rule 43(a) of the Rules, 2000 on the ground of passing of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in Vigilance P.S. Case No.48 of 1992 which was instituted during the service period of the petitioner and, therefore, the same will be treated as his past conduct and not future conduct while receiving pension. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned resolution as contained in memo no.8874 dated 6th November, 2019 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of the respondent no.2 by the order of the Hon’ble Governor, Jharkhand cannot be sustained in law and the same is hereby quashed. 16. The respondent-State of Jharkhand is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse against the petitioner, if the same is permissible under law. 17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.