Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Singh Jadon vs Home Department (Police) on 24 November, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
(S.B.: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
Writ Petition No.7094/2016
Petitioner : Suresh Singh Jadon
Versus
Respondent : State of M.P.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Chetan Jain, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Date: 24.11.2021/ Indore :
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved
by the order dated 29.10.2015 whereby his name has been
removed from the promotion order dated 21.08.2015 on account of
registration of criminal case vide criminal case No. 58/2014 under
Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred as to 'PC Act').
That on account of the filing of the charge sheet on
22.09.2015 vide order dated 16.10.2015, the petitioner was placed
under suspension. During the period of suspension, the petitioner
had attained the age of superannuation and retired from the
services w.e.f. 31.12.2015. Hence, the petitioner has also sought
the relief of the payment of retiral benefit like leave enchantment,
arrears of third-time pay scale along with interest etc.
After notice, the respondents have filed a reply by submitting
that the petitioner was found fit for promotion, hence, his name
was included in the promotion order dated 21.08.2015 but before
issuance of the promotion order, a criminal case under Section 7 of
- : 2 :-
PC Act found to be registered against the petitioner by the Police
Station Lokayukt Establishment, Indore at crime No.54/2014,
therefore, his name was withdrawn from the promotion order.
So far as pension and other retiral benefits are concerned, the
respondents are already paying him anticipatory pension as per
Rule 64 of The M.P. Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 1976
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules,1976) as the judicial proceedings
are pending against the petitioner. On account of the filing of the
charge sheet before the Special Court on 22.09.2015, the petitioner
was placed under suspension. It is further submitted that pendecny
of the criminal case was not brought to the notice of the members
of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to
as 'DPC'), therefore, a promotion order was issued. The case of the
petitioner was liable to be placed on the sealed cover awaiting the
final outcome of the criminal case. The petitioner is not entitled to
full pension and another benefit as per and another benefit as per
Rule 64 of The M.P. Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 1976, hence,
he is rightly getting the provisional pension. A recommendation
has been sent for the cancellation of his promotion order.
After filing the return, the petitioner has been convicted vide
judgment dated 31.08.2018 for the offence punishable under
Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I.
against which he has preferred a criminal appeal before this Court.
The petitioner has filed various interlocutory applications in this
writ petition for the release of leave encasement and gratuity.
At the very outset Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for
the applicant submits that on account of conviction in the criminal
case, his claim in respect of promotion to the post of ASI does not
survive. The petitioner has retired from the service after attaining
- : 3 :-
the age of superannuation. During the suspension period no order
under Rule 8 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 1976 has
been passed withholding his pension by the competent authority,
although in view of the judgment passed by Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Lal Sahab Bairagi Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh 2020 (2) MPLJ 551 no opportunity of hearing or enquiry
is required withholding the pension under Rule 8 of M.P. Civil
Services (Pension), Rules, 1976 after conviction of Government
Employee but an order is liable to be issued till then the petitioner
is entitled to a full pension.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel that so far as
gratuity and leaves encasement are concerned, the same cannot be
withheld even after conviction in a criminal case as held by Apex
Court in various judgments.
It is correct that till date the respondents have not taken any
final decision in respect of withholding pension and retiral dues of
the petitioner upon his conviction in a criminal case. On account of
filing of charge-sheet, the petitioner was placed under suspension
and provisional pension under Rule 64 of The M.P. Civil Services
(Pension), Rules, 1976 has been started but now during pendency
of this petition, the petitioner has been convicted, hence,
authorities are liable to take the final decision in respect of
payment of admissible terminal dues under the law to the
petitioner, hence, the petition is disposed of with the direction to
the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in totality in
view of the change of circumstances in respect of payment of all
retiral benefits admissible to him under the law. Needless to say
that while taking the final decision the competent authority shall
keep in mind the law laid down by this Court as well as by the
- : 4 :-
Apex Court governing the field. The petitioner is permitted to file
the detailed representation to this effect. Needless to say that
admissible dues of the petitioner as per law be paid forthwith. The
final decision be taken within 60 days from the date of production
of a Certified Copy of this order.
The petition is disposed of as above.
Certified copy as per Rules.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
praveen
PRAVEEN NAYAK
2021.11.27 13:01:55 +05'30'
