The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that no opportunity for a hearing is required to be given while invoking Rule 8(2) of Pension Rules.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was appointed to the post of LDC in the Madhya Pradesh Secretariat and step up the ladder to the post of Deputy Secretary and was superannuated from the services after attaining the age of superannuation. Later, on the complaint of a Jail Superintendent, Indore, case was registered by Special Police Lokayukt, Indore under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in which after investigation charge-sheet was filed and trial conducted.
Special Court, Indore convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the PC Act and awarded jail sentence. After the conviction, the GAD Mantralya, Bhopal issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under rule 8 of the Pension Rules and Solicited reply. The petitioner then moved to the High Court to challenge the impugned order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Counsel for the petitioner pointed that the respondents did not consider the case in detail and pass the impugned order which was arbitrary and illegal in nature. He further mentioned that the petitioner was not convicted for a serious crime or was not found guilty of grave misconduct and the authority to withdraw or withhold the pension lies with the Governor of Madhya Pradesh and to no other authority. Additionally, no serious crime or grave misconduct was been committed by the petitioner so as to attract such punishment of withdrawal of pension
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Counsel opposed the prayer and contested that those authorities had rightly considered the aspect of integrity and moral turpitude and thereafter invoked Rule 8(2) of the Pension Rules and in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Lal Sahab Bairagi vs. State of M.P. and Others 2020 (2) MPLJ 551.
Observations of the Court:
The Court while interpreting the scope and ambit of Rule 8 of the Pension Rules, in the case of Lal Sahab Bairagi (supra) held that no opportunity of hearing is required to be given while invoking rule 8(2) of the Pension Rules. The Court observed that in the instance case, the opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and thereafter, considering the nature of allegation involved, integrity, moral turpitude, authority reached to the conclusion which did not require to be dislodged under the limited scope of judicial review by issuance of writ which was discretionary in nature.
The Court added that even otherwise the order had been passed in the name of Governor and whole Cabinet had considered this aspect and thereafter passed the impugned order and incidentally show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before reaching to the conclusion and therefore, no ground existed in favour of the petitioner seeking interference in the writ Jurisdiction.
Decision:
The Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Dashrath Kumar V. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition. 17790 of 2020
Coram: Mr. Hon’ble Justice Anand Pathak
Advocates For Petitioner: Mr. Om Shankar Pandey, Adv.
Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Lalit Joglekar, Govt Adv.
Read Judgement @LatesLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
