JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to release the pension of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was Additional District Judge who was dismissed from service on 08.03.2013 after a disciplinary enquiry conducted by the respondents. Thereafter, he questioned his dismissal in S.L.P. (C) No. 15870 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which also dismissed it on 11.07.2016. 3. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to pension and though he has given a representation seeking pension vide Annexure-4 on 07.11.2019, there has been no action taken on the said representation. 4. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The said rule states that future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension and the Government reserves to itself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is guilty of grave misconduct. It also mentions that the decision of the Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing whole or any part of a pension under the said rule would be final and conclusive. 5. There is also Rule 46 in the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 which specifically says that no pension would be granted to a Government servant dismissed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an inconsistency between Rule 43(a) and Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 applicable to the petitioner. We see no such inconsistency since both of them speak of denial of pension if a Government servant is found guilty of misconduct and Rule 46 is specific to a situation where a Government servant is dismissed from service for misconduct. In the instant case, in W.P.(S) No. 2200 of 2013 filed by the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal imposed on him on 08.03.2013 there are findings to the effect that he had delivered judgments for extraneous considerations. This is undoubtedly a case, thus, of grave misconduct since a judicial officer is not expected to deliver judgments for extraneous considerations as it would reflect upon his integrity. 7. This is undoubtedly a case, thus, of grave misconduct since a judicial officer is not expected to deliver judgments for extraneous considerations as it would reflect upon his integrity. 7. In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner was dismissed from service and in view of Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, the claim of the petitioner for pension cannot be accepted. 8. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. 9. Pending I.A. if any, stands closed.