Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devilal Gehlot vs State Of M.P. Through Water ... on 12 July, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 WA No. 377/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
WA No.377/2020
(Devilal Gehlot Vs.State of M.P. Through Water Resources
Department)
INDORE dt. 12-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Mr Abhinav Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr Aditya Garg, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
This intra-court appeal assails the order of Single Bench
passed in Writ Petition No. 231/2020 dated 11-02-2020,
whereby the petition of the appellant was dismissed in liemine.
2) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant/petitioner retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30-09-2018. On 30-01-2018, the Special
Judge in Session Case No. 1/1999 delivered its judgment and
held the appellant as guilty and directed him to undergo
sentence of two years R.I. in addition to Rs. two lacs was
imposed as fine. The appellant assailed this by filing Criminal
Appeal No. 1406/2018 before this court. This court suspended
the sentence on 20-02-2018. The appellant received a show
cause notice dated 30-08-2018 as to why his pension should not
be stopped in exercise of powers under Rule 8 of M.P. Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The appellant filed his reply
and prayed that his pension be not stopped. The Government by
order dated 11-11-2019 stopped the pension of the appellant and
other co-delinquent retired employees.
3) Criticizing the order dated 11-11-2019 Mr Malhotra,
learned counsel for the appellant raised singular contention. He
submits that although in view of five judges bench judgment of
this court in the case of Lalsahab Bairagi Vs. State of M.P.
and others reported in 2020 (2) MPLJ 551, there exists no
requirement to hear the pensioner before passing the order of
punishment, in cases where the pensioner has been convicted by
a criminal court of competent jurisdiction. However, by placing
reliance on two paragraphs of this judgment of five judges
bench, Mr Malhotra advanced singular contention by a plain
reading of the principles laid down makes it clear that the
Government cannot pass a cyclostyle order. The Government
needs to examine the role of each of delinquent employee, as per
the judgment of the criminal court. The impugned order dated
11-11-2019 falls short of that requirement and, therefore is an
arbitrary order which needs to be axed.
4) The prayer is opposed by Mr Garg, learned Government
Advocate. No other point is pressed.
5) The learned Single Judge did not agree with the aforesaid
contention and dismissed the writ petition by order dated
11-02-2020.
6) Indisputably, the petitioner was held guilty for committing
offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A plain reading
of paragraph-9 of the impugned order dated 11-11-2019
(Annexure-A-2) shows that a clear finding is given by the
Department that the petitioner's offence amounts to 'moral
turpitude'. The basic test to punish an employee is his conduct
which led to his conviction. The conduct of the petitioner as per
the judgment is very grave and after taking this into account the
Department has rightly passed the order dated 11-11-2019.
7) We are unable to hold that the order does not contain
minimum essential reasons on the strength of which a decision
to stop complete pension could have been taken. Thus, no fault
can be found in the order of learned Single Judge. It is
noteworthy that merely because the sentence of appellant is
suspended by this court on 20-02-2018, this will not have any
effect of wiping out the conviction. The relevant part of
Paragraph-8 of the judgment as held by the Supreme Court in
the case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education
(Administration) Madras Vs. S. Nagoor Meera reported in
1995 (3) SCC 377 reads as under :
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that taking
proceedings for and passing orders of dismissal, removal
or reduction in rank of a Government servant who has
been convicted by a criminal court is not barred merely
because the sentence or order is suspended by the
appellate court or on the ground that the said
government servant-accused has been released on bail
pending the appeal."
8) The relevant part of Paragraph-2 of the judgment as held
by the Supreme Court in the case of S. Vasundhara Vs Canara
Bank and others reported in 1997(9) SCC 523 reads as
under :-
"We find no force in the contention. It is true
that the High Court has suspended the operation of the
judgment but nonetheless the conviction recorded by
the trial court cannot be obliterated. It is still a
conviction but only redemption is that by operation of
the suspension, the petitioner is not required to undergo
the sentence pending appeal in the High Court.
Regulation 11 reads as under :
"11. Notwithstanding anything contained in
Regulation 6 or Regulation 7 or Regulation 8 the
Disciplinary Authority may impose any of the penalties
specified in Regulation 4, if the Officer employee has
been convicted on a criminal charge or on the strength
of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial."
9) In view of the foregoing analysis, no case is made out for
admission.
10) Admission is declined.
11) Writ appeal is dismissed.
( SUJOY PAUL ) ( ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Rashmi
Digitally signed by RASHMI PRASHANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
RASHMI
BENCH INDORE, ou=JUDICIAL,
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=f74a61c75cf3ec3bb1707109fa80dae9025
0b08731316350bfccd08d3ef3980c,
PRASHANT
pseudonym=148AEE4D4C2B5EA645B3624C25082
058AF895C6C,
serialNumber=20C624ED34BE4C97025442392973
B5B63C7382F71E92F7ADA789ADAA6DDE9345,
cn=RASHMI PRASHANT
Date: 2021.07.14 16:17:44 +05'30'
