1. The petitioner has impugned order dated 13.02.2010 passed by Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand by which payment of pension to the petitioner has been stopped and recovery of the amount of pension already paid to the petitioner has been ordered.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk on 28.03.1966 at Dumka and subsequently, he was posted under Directorate of Treasuries, Government of Bihar. The petitioner superannuated from service with effect from 31.01.2004. In one of the cases in Fodder Scam, i.e., R.C. Case No. 77 (A) of 1996, the petitioner was implicated and therefore, by order dated 18.09.1996, he was put under suspension. The petitioner superannuated from service, however, no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. After his retirement, the petitioner was sanctioned 90 % amount of pension and gratuity.

3. The petitioner, was convicted in R.C. Case No. 77 (A) of 1996 on 08.06.2007 and by order dated 12.06.2007, he was punished to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and with fine. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1008 of 2007 which was admitted and he was granted bail by this Court.

4. It appears that in compliance of order dated 30.05.2008 of the Secretary, Finance Department, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda directed the Treasury Officer, Godda by letter dated 22.12.2008 to stop payment of pension to the petitioner and a further direction was given to the Treasury Officer for recovery of the pension already paid to the petitioner. The orders dated 30.05.2008 and 22.12.2008 were challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1656 of 2009. This Court by order dated 11.11.2009 disposed of the writ petition in the following terms:

“When the authority concerned has multiple choices under the Rule and each of those choices is likely to adversely affect the employee in a different manner, and when the principles of natural justice are not expressly excluded by statute, the said principles would require an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the employee concerned before the decision is taken causing an adverse affect upon the employee.

In the present case, no such opportunity has been afforded. The decision is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice.

The decision contained in Annexure-3 and all consequential orders are therefore, quashed leaving it open to the Government to take a fresh decision in accordance with law.”

5. Thereafter, by letter dated 16.01.2010 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for withdrawal of pension and recovery of pension already paid to him. The petitioner, by letter dated 25.01.2010, submitted his reply to the show cause notice dated 16.01.2010. A specific plea was raised by the petitioner that the proceeding contemplated under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules was not in accordance with law and therefore, the show cause notice was contrary to law. However, by order dated 13.02.2010, under the provision of Rule 43 (a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the payment of pension to the petitioner was stopped and recovery of the pension already paid to the petitioner was ordered. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging order dated 13.02.2010.

6. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which the respondents have tried to justify the impugned order dated 13.02.2010. It has been stated that in compliance of order passed by this Court on 11.11.2009, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.01.2010 and after affording opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply, the impugned order has been passed.

7. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner contemplating a proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules, the impugned order dated 13.02.2010 has been passed under Rule 43