Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Ashok Kumar Mukerjee vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 October, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 26 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 14880 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
DR. (SMT.) SUMITA MUKERJEE W/O LATE DR. ASHOK
KUMAR MUKERJEE 984, RANI DURGAWATI WARD,
GARHA JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHIMANYU SINGH - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY MEDICAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL
E D U C AT I O N S A T P U D A BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEAN NETAJI SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE
MEDICAL COLLEGE DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF
PEN SION OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PENSION
OFFICER STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CAMPUR
SOUTH CIVIL LINES NEAR HEADPSOT OFFICE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK SAHU - PANEL LAWYER)
WRIT PETITION No. 3505 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
DR. ASHOK KUMAR MUKERJEE S/O LATE DR. SARAT
KUMAR MUKERJEE, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
10/27/2023 3:47:20 PM
2
OCCUPATION: RETD. PROFESSOR OF NETAJI SUBASH
CHANDRA BOSH MEDICAL COLLAGE, JABALPUR H.NO.
984, RANI DURGAWATI WARD GARHA JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHIMANYU SINGH - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF M.P., MEDICAL
EDUCATION DEPT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MEDICAL EDUCATION
D E P T T . MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL
E D U C AT I O N SATPUDA BHAWAN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. THE DEAN NETAJI SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE
MEDICAL COLLEG JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. JOINT DIRECTOR KOSH LEKHA AND PENSION
JABALPUR DIVISION (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER CCITY TREASURY
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK SAHU - PANEL LAWYER )
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent, finally heard.
2. The petition (W.P.No.3505 of 2012) is filed by deceased employee
assailing the order 22/09/2011 (Annexure P/1) whereby petitioner's pension was
withdrawn by invoking Rule 9(1) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred as 'Pension Rules'). Another petition i.e.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
10/27/2023 3:47:20 PM
W.P.No.14880 of 2016 is filed by the widow seeking family pension.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset fairly submits that
outcome of second petition filed by widow will be based on the outcome of
first petition wherein order dated 22/09/2011 (Annexure P/1) is called in
question.
4. By taking this Court to the order dated 22/09/2011, learned counsel
for the petitioner raised singular contention. By placing reliance on the judgment
of Indore Bench reported in 2017 (1) MPLJ 640 Dau Ram Maheshwar vs.
State of M.P. and anothe r, learned counsel for petitioners submits that
without issuing the notice to the retired employee, the imposition of punishment
on the basis of conviction is bad in law. He submits that in the light of judgment
of Dau Ram Maheshwar (supra), the impugned order be set aside.
5. The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer.
6. The point involved in this case is no more res integra. A Full Bench
of five Judges has drawn curtains on this issue in Lal Sahab Bairagi vs. State
of M.P. and others, 2020 (2) MPLJ 551. The five Judges' Bench specifically
overruled the judgment of Dau Ram Maheshwar (supra) on which heavy
reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioners. The answer to the
reference by Full Bench is as under :-
"17. The answer to the questions referred to this Larger
Bench is given accordingly by clearly stating that:--
(i) The principles of natural justice are specifically and
expressly excluded and have no application to the cases
falling under Rule 8(2) of 1976 Rules in view of the
opening words of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976,
therefore, when an action is taken against the pensioner
under Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 1976, no notice is
required to be issued to the pensioner nor can he insists
upon prior opportunity of representation on the strength
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
10/27/2023 3:47:20 PM
of the principles of Natural Justice.
(ii) The decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram
Sewak Mishra (supra) and the decision in the case of
Dau Ram Maheshwar (supra) are hereby overruled.
(iii) It is held that the authority is not required to issue
notice or afford prior opportunity of representation
before passing the order under Rule 8(2) of the Pension
Rules of 1976, in respect of a pensioner who has been
convicted in the criminal cases. However, the power of
the authority to take action under the Rules would be
subject to the guidelines as stated by the Supreme Court
in the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra) and reiterated by
this Bench in the preceding paragraphs of this
judgment."
7. Since, curtains are finally drawn by Full Bench, there is no manner
of doubt that no notice is required to be issued to the retired employee for
exercising the power under Rule 8 / 9 of the Pension Rules. Thus, singular point
raised by the petitioners cannot be accepted.
8. Before parting with the matter, I deem it proper to observe that citing
an overruled judgment is not a healthy practice. The Apex Court expressed its
displeasure and opined that citing an overruled judgment shows the falling
standard of professional conduct. [See: (2001) 2 SCC 221 D. P. Chadha v.
Triyugi Narain Mishra, (2004) 7 SCC 19 State of Orissa v. Nalinikanta
Muduli and (2019) 6 SCC 441 Lal Bahadur Gautam v. State of U. P.]
9. Since, singular point raised is decided against the petitioner. Nothing
survives in these petitions.
10. Petitions are devoid of substance and are hereby dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
10/27/2023 3:47:20 PM
JUDGE
manju
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
10/27/2023 3:47:20 PM
