1. The only question involved in this writ petition is whether a second proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules can be initiated against a Government servant for the alleged misconduct for which he has already been punished.

2. The petitioner superannuated on 01.08.1997 from the post of Accountant when he was posted in Jamshedpur Treasury. The petitioner was charge-sheeted in R.C. Case No. 23 (A) of 1996 however, during the pendency of the investigation, he had superannuated. A proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules was initiated against the petitioner and after considering the enquiry report and explanation of the petitioner, order dated 28.05.2001 was passed whereby 25 % of the amount of pension of the petitioner was withheld under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and a further punishment under Rule 97 of Bihar Service Code was imposed whereby service of the petitioner was not to be counted during the period of suspension and during such period it was ordered that he would be entitled for the subsistence allowance only. Accordingly, the Accountant General, Ranchi fixed the pension of the petitioner by order dated 05.12.2001 and thereafter, he was paid his pension regularly.

3. The petitioner, it appears was convicted in R.C. Case No. 23 (A) of 1996 by order dated 23.04.2008. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 563 of 2008 (S.J.) which was admitted by the High Court and the petitioner was granted bail. Without giving any notice to the petitioner, the pension of the petitioner was withheld from December, 2009 and therefore, the petitioner made enquiry in the office of the Treasury Officer, Jamshedpur, where the petitioner was informed that in compliance of order dated 10.11.2009 issued by Principal Secretary (Finance) the pension of the petitioner was withheld. The petitioner thereafter, submitted his request to the Treasury Officer, Jamshedpur on 02.12.2009 for release of pension. When the petitioner could not get any response, he filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 10.11.2009 in the aforesaid facts.

4. A counter–affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents justifying the impugned order of withdrawal / forfeiture of pension of the petitioner.

5. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules was initiated against the petitioner and order inflicting punishment in the departmental proceeding was passed on 28.05.2001 and therefore, the pension of the petitioner can not be forfeited pursuant to letter dated 10.11.2009. He further submits that even a second proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules could not have been initiated against the petitioner for withholding / forfeiture of the pension of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been convicted in the Criminal Case. The charges against the petitioner are grave and therefore, his pension has been withdrawn under Rule 43 (a) of Jharkhand Pension Rules.

6. On perusal of the writ petition, I find that the petitioner has specifically raised a plea that withdrawing his full pension amounts to double jeopardy as the petitioner has already been punished in a proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules. The petitioner has further raised a plea that withdrawing the full pension of the petitioner is in violation of principle of natural justice. The respondents have not specifically controverted the said plea of the petitioner. The respondents have simply stated that the petitioner has abused his position as a public servant causing pecuniary advantage to the suppliers and for that he has been convicted in the criminal case. It has further been stated that under Rule 43 (a) of Jharkhand Pension Rules future conduct is an implied condition for grant of pension and the Provincial Govern