Court was pending, however, that is not the factual position. The Criminal Appeal, as noticed above, had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.12.2015, whereas, the impugned order was passed on 19.12.2016 i.e. little over a year, later. Despite dismissal of his Criminal Appeal, the respondent suppressed the fact from the Tribunal and preferred the OA. 5. Mr. Satyakam submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the Tribunal has proceeded on wrong presumption of facts. It is submitted that the respondent was not entitled to any relief from the Tribunal in view of the conduct of suppressing the fact that his Criminal Appeal had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.12.2015. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the relief granted to the respondent is premised on a reading of Rule 9 and Rule 69 of the CCS Pensions Rules. The submission is that the respondent was entitled to provisional pension under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 9 equivalent to the maximum pension that was admissible to the respondent on the basis of qualifying service upto the date of retirement since the respondent completed his service till the date of his superannuation. He submits that the provisional pension once paid cannot be recovered under Rule 69(2).
