Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dashrath Kumar vs State Of M.P. on 13 June, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
WRIT PETITION No. 17790 of 2020
Between:-
DASHRATH KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI
CHUNNILAL AGED 64 YEARS, RETIRED
DEPUTY SECRETARY, GOVT. OF M.P. R/O
HOUSE NO.32, DHAROHAR CAMPUS FACE -2,
GENHU KHEDA KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH) 462042
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI OM SHANKAR PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNOR OF
MADHYA PRADESH, RAJBHAWAN BHOPAL
462003.
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH CHIEF
SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 462004
3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PERSONEL)
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH) 462004
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI LALIT JOGLEKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Reserved on : 01-03-2023
Delivered on : 13-06-2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders coming on for
pronouncement this day, delivered the following:-
ORDER
1. The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking following reliefs:
"(A) Calling the relevant records along with note
sheets pertaining to issuance of show cause notice
impugned order dated 27-05-2019 and pertaining
dated 26-05-2020 (Annexure P/1) and dated 13-10-
2020 (Annexure P/2) and appeal dated 21-08-2020.
(B) Quashing the impugned order dated 26-05-2020
Annexure P/1 and order dated 13-10-2020 (Annexure
P/2) as they are illegal, arbitrary and void ab initio;
AND
(C) Directing the respondent No.3 to grant full
pension regularly after fixation of pay in 7 th pay
commission with all consequential benefits, including
all pensionary benefits i.e. gratuity etc and arrears of
dues with 18 percent interest.
(D) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit; also be granted to the petitioner along with
costs."
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26-05-2020 (Annexure P/1)
passed by respondent No.1 whereby the representations dated 07-06-
2019, 10-06-2019 and 11-07-2019 were considered and rejected and
final order dated 13-10-2020 (Annexure P/2) was passed forfeiting the
pension of the petitioner permanently purportedly under the
provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (in short 'the
Pension Rules').
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed to
the post of LDC in the Madhya Pradesh Secretariat in August, 1966
and step up the ladder to the post of Deputy Secretary in December,
2011. He was superannuated from the services after attaining the age
of superannuation from the post of Deputy Secretary, Government of
Madhya Pradesh on 31-10-2016. It appears that on the complaint of
Smt. Shaifali Tiwari, 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 short 'the PC Act') 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 of
4 years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. Allegations
against the petitioner were that he visited Indore as Deputy Secretary,
Jail Department for grading ACR in Madhya Pradesh PSC and stayed
at Hotel Balwas International at the instance of said Jail
Superintendent.
4. After conviction recorded by the Special Court vide judgment dated
27-02-2019, a show cause notice was issued by the GAD, Mantralaya,
Bhopal on 27-05-2019 to the petitioner under rule 8 of the Pension
Rules and solicited reply.
5. Petitioner submitted detailed reply to the show cause notice vide reply
dated 07-06-2019, 10-06-2019 and 11-07-2019. After considering
replies, impugned order dated 26-05-2020 (Annexure P/1) has been
passed. After decision of Cabinet taken on 13-10-2020, petitioner
preferred this petition taking exception to both the orders.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondents did not consider the case in detail and pass the impugned
order which is arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner was not convicted for a
serious crime or was not found guilty of grave misconduct. It is
further submitted that authority to withdraw or withhold the pension
lies with the Governor of Madhya Pradesh and to no other authority.
Here, without application of mind, decision has been taken by the
incompetent authority. No serious crime or grave misconduct has been
committed by the petitioner so as to attract such punishment of
withdrawal of pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
judgment of Apex Court in the case of Shanker Dass Vs. Union of
India & Anr., AIR 1985 SC 772 and in case of State of Jharkhand
& Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (2013) 12 SCC 210
and seeks parity.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and
contested the case by way of filing reply. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the respondents that authorities have 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 reported in 2020 (2) MPLJ 551, even opportunity of hearing
is not required to be given. Since rules prescribes said withholding
therefore, the impugned order is within the legal bounds. He prayed
for dismissal of petition.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. This is a case where petitioner who suffered trial wherein trial Court
recorded the conviction against him vide judgment dated 27-02-2019
for the alleged offence under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the PC Act
and sentenced the petitioner.
10. So far as withdrawal of pension is concerned rule 8 is very luculent in
this regard. Rule 8 is reproduced for ready reference:-
"8. Pension subject to future good conduct. - (1) (a)
Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of
every grant of pension and its continuance under these
rules.
(b) The pension sanctioning authority may, by order in
writing withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof,
whether permanently or for a specified period, if the
pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found
guilty of grave misconduct:
Provided that no such order shall be passed by
an authority subordinate to the authority competent at
the time of retirement of the pensioner, to make an
appointment to the post held by him immediately before
his retirement from service :
Provided further that where a part of pension is
withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension
shall not be reduced below [the minimum pension as
determined by the Government from time to time].
(2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime
by a Court of law, action under clause (b) of sub-rule
(1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the
Court relating to such conviction.
(3) In a case not falling under sub-rule (2), if the
authority referred to in sub-rule (1) considers that the
pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it
shall before passing an order under sub-rule (1)-
(a) serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the
action proposed to be taken against him and the ground
on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon
him to submit, within fifteen days of the receipt of the
notice or such further time not exceeding fifteen days
as may be allowed by the pension sanctioning
authority, such representation as he may wish to make
against the proposal; and
(b) take into consideration the representation, if any,
submitted by the pensioner under clause (a).
(4) Where the authority competent to pass an order
under sub-rule (1) is the Governor, the State Public
Service Commission shall be consulted before the order
is passed.
(5) An appeal against an order under sub-rule (1);
passed by any authority other than the Governor, shall
lie to the Governor and the Governor shall in
consultation with the State Public Service Commission
pass such order on the appeal as he deems fit.
Explanation. - In this rule,-
(a) the expression "serious crime" includes a crime
involving an offence under the Official Secrets Act 1923
(No. 19 of 1923);
(b) the expression "grave misconduct" includes the
communication or disclosure of any secret official code
or pass word or any sketch, plan, model, article, note,
document or information such as is mentioned in
Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, while holding
office under the government so as to prejudicially affect
the interests of the general public, or the security of the
country.
[Note - The Provisions of this rule shall also be applicable
to family pension payable under Rules 47 and 48. The authority
competent to make an appointment to the post held by the deceased
Government servant/ pensioner immediately before the death or
retirement from the service, as the case may be, shall be the
competent authority to withhold or withdraw any part of family
pension."
11. While interpreting scope and ambit of Rule 8 of the Pension Rules,
Full Bench of this Court in the case of Lal Sahab Bairagi (supra)
has held that while invoking rule 8(2) of the Pension Rules, no
opportunity of hearing is required to be given. However, power of the
authority to take action under the Pension Rules would be subject to
the guidelines as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India and another Vs. Tulsiram Patel and others, AIR 1985 SC
1416.
12. Here in instance case, 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 does not required to be dislodged under the limited
scope of judicial review by issuance of writ which is discretionary in
nature. Even otherwise, order has been passed in the name of
Governor and whole Cabinet has considered this aspect and thereafter
passed the impugned order and incidentally show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner before reaching to the conclusion. Therefore,
no ground exists in favour of the petitioner seeking interference in the
writ jurisdiction. Earlier Full Bench in the case of Laxmi Narayan
Hayaran Vs. State of M.P. 2004(4) MPLJ (FB) 555 held that no
prior hearing is required before the passing the order under rule 8(2)
of the Pension Rules, consequent upon the conviction.
13. Perusal of the impugned order dated 13-10-2020 indicates that due
consideration over the facts and circumstances as well as nature of
allegations were made and thereafter authorities reached to the
conclusion. Once the respondents considered all pros and cons and
duly vetted the reasons for arriving to such conclusion therefore,
interference declines and petition being sans merits and is hereby
dismissed.
(Anand Pathak)
Judge
Anil*
RASHID
Digitally signed by RASHID KHAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=23377d7d214c811801fc322b576ca4ed1954237f6324416a
KHAN
f3985b5e9940ed42,
pseudonym=D0D045404B6F6AB1225B3600B86B72153386BADD,
serialNumber=111CC474A72B078DC9A89F3CB13BB668FD8E0E91
BEDA3CB721BBD836D768B09C, cn=RASHID KHAN
Date: 2023.06.13 20:13:51 +05'30'
