dissenting:
There is no case directly addressing the issue presented, that is, whether Judge Shields is entitled to a full refund of $113,222.04 he paid into the Judges Retirement System, while a lawfully acting judge. Judge Shields retired on October 9, 1990, and received monthly pension checks until March 2, 1992, when he was convicted of felony offenses and sentenced.
Section 18 — 163 of the Pension Code provides:
“None of the benefits *** shall be paid to any person who is convicted of any felony relating to or arising out of or in connection with his or her service as a judge.
This Section shall not *** preclude the right to a refund.” 40 ILCS 5/18—163 (West 1992).
The meaning of this provision is clear: the penalty for felony conviction is simply the discontinuation of benefits. There is no indication under the language of the statute that this penalty applies retroactively to benefits paid out prior to a conviction, however, or impacts upon the right to a refund of contributions made to the system prior to convictian. The case Janata v. Police Pension Fund, 140 Ill. App. 3d 925 (1986), supports this conclusion. There, the statute at issue mandated the discontinuation of benefits to police officers upon conviction of any felony connected to their service as officers. In all relevant aspects, the statute at issue in Janata is duplicative of the statute at issue in the instant case. The First District, in interpreting the statute, affirmed the circuit court’s decision to uphold a full refund of contributions made by an officer convicted of a felony, without a deduction of benefits paid out prior to the officer’s conviction. In reaching this conclusion the court reasoned, “[TJhere is no language in the statute before us which would permit a pension board to halt payments before the conviction or recoup payments made prior to that date.” Janata, 140 Ill. App. 3d at 927. Under this same reasoning, I believe Judge Shields is entitled to a total refund of his contributions to the system, without deduction for benefits lawfully paid to him while in retirement. Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the circuit court.