Order

1. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 28.04.2021 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, whereby in exercise of powers under Regulation-4 of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Regulations, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Regulation 4 of the Regulations of 1989'), pension earlier sanctioned to the petitioner was withheld permanently.

2. It has been asserted by the petitioner that when the petitioner was working on the post of Office Assistant in respondent- Corporation, on account of involvement in Criminal Case No.126/90, the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act No.1 passed judgment dated 06.09.2018, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 120-B IPC and on account of such conviction, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years as well as to pay fine.

3. It is stated that in the meanwhile, on attaining age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2001 and even the pension was also sanctioned to the petitioner and he was receiving pensionary benefits admissible to him upon his retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that soon after judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.09.2018, without providing any opportunity of hearing whatsoever or without even issuing any notice to the petitioner, in quite abrupt manner order dated 31.01.2019 was issued by the Chief Manager of Central Bus Stand RSRTC, Jaipur, who was not even competent to issue any penalty order, whereby the pension admissible to the petitioner was directed to be permanently withheld w.e.f. 01.12.2018.

4. The petitioner challenged order dated 31.01.2019 by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2709/2020, mainly on the ground of incompetence of the order issuing authority, however, in view of interim order dated 19.01.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the respondents passed fresh order dated 28.04.2021, which was although issued by the competent authority i.e. the Chairman and Managing Director of respondent- Corporation, however, again the petitioner was deprived of any opportunity of hearing, nor did he receive any show cause notice before passing order dated 28.04.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed in purported exercise of powers under Regulation 4 of the Regulations of 1989, which although can be invoked under the circumstances, where the concerned retired employee does not continue good conduct, which is implied condition for grant of pension, yet further submits that withholding the pension permanently is not the only penalty prescribed and rather discretion has been conferred upon the pension sanctioning authority under Regulation-4 to withhold/withdraw pension either in complete or in part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, therefore, in view of multiple choice of penalty prescribed, the order passed by the authority under Regulation-4 must reflect proper application of mind, so as to demonstrate the justified reasons for choosing a particular penalty by the authority concerned.

6. In the instant case, order dated 28.04.2021, apart from suffering from violation of principles of natural justice, is totally vague and evasive; and fails to show any proper application of mind for inflicting harshest penalty of withholding complete pension permanently. Thus, even otherwise, order dated 28.04.2021 has been issued in erroneous exercise of provisions of Regulation-4 of the Regulations of 1989.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 06.09.2018 for committing an offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, therefore, under the circumstances, no other option wa