Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 28TH OF MAY, 2024
W.P. No.32122 OF 2023
BETWEEN:-
ASHOK KUMAR DUBEY S/O SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR
DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION THEN
ASSISTANT GRADE-2, OFFICE SUB DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, TEHSIL PATAN - DISTRICT JABALPUR
R/O HOUSE NO.462, BYOHARBAG, CIVIL LINE
JABALPUR, DISTRICT JABALPUR (M.P.)
......PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJAY SEN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL, DISTRICT
BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. THE COLLECTOR JABALPUR, DISTRICT
JABALPUR
......RESPONDENTS
(BY MISS ANKITA KHARE - PANEL LAWYER)
................................................................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner is claiming provisionally pension.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the
provisional pension was being granted to the petitioner during the
pendency of criminal case registered against him by the Lokayukta as he
was trapped while demanding bribe, but since that criminal case i.e.
Special Case No.10/2016 has been culminated into conviction of the
petitioner and he has been awarded sentence under Section 13(1)(Gha)
(ii) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, therefore,
his provisional pension has been withheld. He submits that against the
said judgment dated 29.10.2018, an appeal was preferred before the
High Court and that appeal has been admitted and sentence awarded by
the trial Court has been suspended. The petitioner is claiming that since
the order of trial Court in criminal case has not attained finality as the
appeal is pending before the High Court and it is treated to be a
continuation of trial, the provisional pension cannot be withheld as per
Rule 64 M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. He has placed
reliance upon a judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in AIR
2004 Kant. 3320 parties being (N.K. Suparna vs. Union of India).
3. However, I am not convinced with the submission made by the
counsel for the petitioner for the reason that this Court has already
considered this aspect in W.P. No.9470 of 2023 (Vishnu Kumar
Panika Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another) decided vide
order dated 04.05.2023 and has clearly held that after conviction merely
because appeal is pending in the High Court against the conviction, the
petitioner is not entitled to get any pensionary benefit. The observation
made by this Court in the said case is as under:-
"Recently, the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal
Nos.7437-7438 of 2021 [The Secretary Local Self
Government Department & Ors. Etc. Vs. K. Chandaran
Etc.] has clearly held that after conviction, the employee is
not entitled to claim pension or any other retiral dues though
his/her criminal appeal against the conviction is pending
before the High Court. Furthermore, this Court in the case
reported in 2002 (5) MPHT 11 [Ram Ratan Tiwari Vs.
State of M.P. and others] has held that criminal appeal is
not in continuance of trial. Therefore, in view of the
provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules, 1976 which reads as
under:-
"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."
and the law laid down by the Larger Bench in the case of
Lal Saheb Bairagi (supra), I do not find any substance in
the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner
and on the contrary, I am of the opinion that after conviction
that too in an offence which falls within the category of
moral turpitude merely because an appeal is preferred by the
employee, the provisional pension cannot be granted"
4. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is misconceived and
accordingly it is dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
ANIL CHOUDHARY
2024.05.29 10:52:40
+05'30'
