As per case facts, the Petitioner, a retired Sub Engineer, had a criminal case registered against him, which the Special Court refused to cognize due to lack of sanction under ... CrPC Section 197. After voluntary retirement, the State Government issued an order to withhold 100% of his pension under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules 1976, allegedly without consulting the State Public Service Commission or granting him a hearing. The Petitioner challenged this order, citing violations of natural justice and statutory provisions. The question arose whether an employee is entitled to a hearing before pension withdrawal/withholding when based on a criminal conviction, whether the authority must apply its mind to the gravity of the offense, and if an order passed in the Governor's name by the State Government is valid under Rule 9(1) without personal application of mind. Finally, the Court held that while Rule 9 doesn't explicitly mandate a hearing in judicial conviction cases, principles of natural justice require it due to the severe civil consequences. The Court stressed that the authority must consider the offense's gravity and other circumstances. Crucially, the absence of mandatory consultation with the State Public Service Commission vitiates the proceedings. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh order after due process, including PSC approval.