Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhanraj Malvi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2025
1 WA-786-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WA No. 786 of 2023
(DHANRAJ MALVI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
WA/445/2023, WA/446/2023
Dated : 03-04-2025
Shri Om Shankar Pandey and Smt. Anchan Pandey - Advocates for the
Petitioners in the respective cases.
Dr. Siddharth Singh Chouhan - Government Advocate for the
Respondents No.1 to 4 in the respective cases.
The case of the appellants is that the appellants had retired much
before the conviction has been awarded to them.
In the case of Asha Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others in
Writ Petition No.4279/2023 vide Order dated 03rd January, 2024, the
Hon'ble Court passed as under:-
"6. Rule 9(1) of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976
gives power to Governor of withdrawing or withholding the
pension of a retired government servant either permanently or
temporarily. Pension can be withhold partly or entirely. Governor
is also vested with power for recovery of pecuniary loss caused to
the government. Only because government servant has been given
full opportunity of hearing in a criminal case will not rule out
opportunity of hearing to a government servant on question of
stoppage of pension. Government servant is prosecuted for
committing offences under Indian Penal Code or under Prevention
of Corruption Act in criminal trial. Criminal Court does not have
2 WA-786-2023
any opportunity to consider the question of stoppage of pension,
which is right of a government servant and same was not an issue
before the criminal Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that
government servant, who is convicted in a criminal trial, cannot be
given second opportunity of hearing of stoppage of pension when
he has been convicted after affording full opportunity of hearing.
7. In these circumstances, impugned order dated 10.01.2023
is hereby quashed. However, respondents are at liberty to pass a
fresh order of withholding or withdrawing the pension
permanently or temporarily, partly or fully, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."
In another case of Dinesh Chandra Soni Vs. State of M.P. and Others
in Writ Petition No.3936/2023 vide Order dated 21st November, 2023, the
Hon'ble Court passed as under:-
"3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before
issuance of the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was
provided and no departmental enquiry was conducted on the basis
of judgment of conviction and straightway an order has been
passed under Rule 9(1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1976 (for short, 'the Pension Rules, 1976'). It is also
submitted that the petitioner has been superannuated on
30.11.2011 from the date of post of Assistant Grade I and fully
dependent upon the pension. It is further submitted by the
petitioner that according to Rule 69(1)(b), the provisional pension
3 WA-786-2023
ought to have been fixed and the petitioner should be paid
provisional pension, gratuity with other benefits as the petitioner
has preferred the criminal appeal before the High Court of M.P.
wherein vide order dated 18.10.2022, his jail sentence has been
suspended. According to the petitioner, the appeal is in
continuation of the original proceedings and therefore, it cannot be
said that criminal proceedings have attained finality. The petitioner
placed heavy reliance upon the judgement passed by the Division
Bench in W.A.No.875/2020 in the matter of Radha Krishna
Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. decided on 3.8.2021 whereby the
similar issue was under consideration and the Division Bench after
considering the provisions of the Pension Rules, 1976 quashed the
order of withdrawing of pension.
10. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the aforesaid judgments as well as the provisions of Pension
Rules, it is apparent that the petitioner was superannuated on
30.11.2011 and was getting the full pension. However, the
petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Court vide judgment
dated 16.9.2022 along with other delinquent employees therefore,
the impugned order was passed to withhold the pension
permanently. It is not the case of the respondent that before
passing the order Annexure P-1, any opportunity of hearing was
granted to the petitioner. Thus in view of the law laid down by the
Division Bench in the matter of Radha Krishna Sharma (supra),
4 WA-786-2023
the present petition is allowed and the impugned order of
withdrawing the pension of the petitioner permanently in entirety
under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, 1976 dated 10.1.2023 is
quashed. However, the liberty is granted to the
respondent/competent authority to consider and pass a fresh order
after following the due process of law as explained in the case of
Radha Krishna Sharma(supra)."
It is not in dispute that the said petitioners mentioned above are
similarly situated persons.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to take
instructions whether the aforesaid judgment has been challenged and whether
those petitioners are getting pension or not.
At the request of learned counsel for the appellant, W.A.No.961/2023
is delinked from the bunch.
List the bunch of cases on 23.04.2025.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
veni
